Options for Intrauterine Contraception

Comparing options for women seeking permanent contraception in high-resource countries: a protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

For women seeking permanent contraception, there are a variety of options available including surgical techniques such as tubal ligation or bilateral salpingectomy, in-clinic procedures such as hysteroscopic techniques using micro-inserts, or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine contraceptive. Despite the various methods available for women who are seeking permanent contraception, there is not a review or decision-making tool that systematically brings together outcomes related to effectiveness, tolerability, adverse effects, non-contraceptive benefits, recovery, or accessibility: all of which are important for shared decision-making between patients and health care providers.

METHODS

We registered our protocol [on Prospero: CRD42016038254] following PRISMA guidelines. A search strategy was created in collaboration with a librarian, and three databases (EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science) will be searched along with secondary screening of relevant articles. A third reviewer will adjudicate any discrepancies. Data will be extracted independently according to population, intervention, comparison, outcomes (PICOS); length of follow-up; and funding. Articles will be assessed for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Collaboration tool. If appropriate, a network meta-analysis will be conducted to rank and analyze each method according to each objective. If heterogeneity between studies is too high or it is not possible to conduct a network meta-analysis, a narrative analysis of the study results will be provided.

DISCUSSION

Clinicians and their patients seeking permanent contraception have several options, yet we were unable to find a systematic review or decision support tool helping to facilitate shared decision-making. This systematic review can inform patients, providers, and health policy decision-makers about which options of permanent contraception will meet different reproductive goals according to various outcomes, which can lead to better health, social, economic, and mental well-being for reproductive age women. This can also aid our understanding of resulting costs to the health care system.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016038254.

Sexual functioning in women using levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems as compared to copper intrauterine devices

INTRODUCTION

There has been little research published on the impact of intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) methods on sexual functioning.

AIMS

This study aimed: (i) to assess different aspects of sexual functioning, including the prevalence of sexual dysfunction in women using a levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS); (ii) to compare this prevalence with that among copper-releasing intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) users; and (iii) to identify the relationship between psychological variables and sexual functioning in women using one of the aforementioned IUCs.

METHODS

In a multicenter cross-sectional study, 845 women with an IUC were invited to fill out a questionnaire. The latter was returned by 402 (48%) of them: 353 women were LNG-IUS users (88%) and 49 were Cu-IUD users (12%). The questions asked pertained to depression, well-being, marital relation quality, and sexual functioning.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Sexual functioning was measured with the short sexual functioning scale.

RESULTS

One-third of LNG-IUS users (33%) reported a sexual dysfunction. Of those, 20% reported an increased sexual desire, 25% a decreased sexual desire, 5% arousal problems, and 8% orgasm problems. Women using a LNG-IUS did not differ significantly in distribution, type, or prevalence (32.9% vs. 36.7%) of sexual dysfunction, nor in depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory score; 4.7 vs. 3.9; P = 0.33), general well-being (WHO-5 well-being scale score; 16.8 vs. 17.7; P = 0.170), or partner relationship quality (Dyadic Adjustment Scale score; 107 vs. 108; P = 0.74) compared to Cu-IUD users. Overall, the perceived influence of IUCs on sexual functioning was in the lower range and did not differentiate LNG-IUS greatly from Cu-IUD-users.

CONCLUSION

Women using a LNG-IUS do not differ from those wearing a Cu-IUD with regard to psychological and sexual functioning. The perceived impact of IUD use on sexuality should not be overestimated.