No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Effect of intracervical block on self-reported intrauterine device insertion pain: a single-center prospective survey study
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
The 2024 U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (U.S. SPR) addresses a selected group of common, yet sometimes complex, issues regarding initiation and use of specific contraceptive methods. These recommendations for health care providers were updated by CDC after review of the scientific evidence and a meeting with national experts in Atlanta, Georgia, during January 25–27, 2023. The information in this report replaces the 2016 U.S. SPR (CDC. U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2016. MMWR 2016;65[No. RR-4]:1–66). Notable updates include 1) updated recommendations for provision of medications for intrauterine device placement, 2) updated recommendations for bleeding irregularities during implant use, 3) new recommendations for testosterone use and risk for pregnancy, and 4) new recommendations for self-administration of injectable contraception. The recommendations in this report are intended to serve as a source of evidence-based clinical practice guidance for health care providers. The goals of these recommendations are to remove unnecessary medical barriers to accessing and using contraception and to support the provision of person-centered contraceptive counseling and services in a noncoercive manner. Health care providers should always consider the individual clinical circumstances of each person seeking contraceptive services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice for individual patients; when needed, patients should seek advice from their health care providers about contraceptive use.
Introduction
In June 2021, high-profile testimonials in the media about pain during intrauterine device (IUD) procedures in the UK prompted significant discussion across platforms including Twitter (subsequently renamed X). We examined a sample of Twitter postings (tweets) to gain insight into public perspectives and experiences.
Methods
We harvested tweets posted or retweeted on 21–22 June 2021 which contained the search terms coil, intrauterine system, IUD or intrauterine. We analysed the dataset thematically and selected illustrative tweets with the authors’ consent for publication.
Results
Following deduplication and screening, we included 1431 tweets in our analysis. We identified testimonials with descriptions of varied pain experiences. Twitter users reported that clinicians had not warned them that pain could be severe or explained the options for pain relief. Some raised concerns about pain being minimised or dismissed and linked this to the management of women’s pain in medicine more broadly. Twitter users described connecting to an online community with shared experiences as validating and used this as a springboard for collective action.
Conclusions
While we acknowledge the limitations of our sample, this study highlights important perspectives and accounts relating to pain during IUD procedures. Our findings attest to the need for strategies to improve the patient experience for those opting for IUD as a clinical priority. Further research should explore IUD users' experiences, expectations and wishes around pain management.
One barrier to the use of intrauterine devices (IUDs) as a contraceptive method is the experience of anxiety and pain during the insertion procedure. Previous reviews have focused on pharmacological methods used to relieve pain during IUD insertion; however, few similar reviews have examined non-pharmacological methods to relieve pain or strategies to reduce anxiety. The objectives of this study were to identify and categorize strategies for reducing anxiety and pain with respect to IUD insertion and the ways in which anxiety and pain were assessed. In particular, the study aimed to identify non-pharmacological interventions and studies that included anxiety as a research outcome. A literature search was conducted of all English-language studies between inception and the week of July 29, 2018 from the following online databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and PubMed. The search revealed 426 studies after removal of duplicates, 35 of which fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 29 studies were identified as assessing pharmacological interventions for the management of pain, and six studies assessed non-pharmacological interventions. Only one study included a measurement of patient anxiety during the procedure as an outcome measure. Research on non-pharmacological interventions for the management of anxiety and pain during IUD insertion is lacking. This review found that evidence for the studied pharmacological interventions is conflicting, and there is very little evidence on understanding the effectiveness of strategies to manage anxiety during the IUD insertion procedure. Further high-quality research on non-pharmacological pain and anxiety management strategies is warranted.
Objective: The aim of the study was to better understand the relationship between pain during intrauterine device (IUD) insertion and anxiety, negative perceptions of IUDs and previous mode of delivery, in parous women.
Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study between June and September 2018 in 210 women who opted for IUD placement for contraception. Sixty-six women who had previously had only vaginal delivery under epidural analgesia were allocated to the epidural delivery group; 60 women who had previously had at least one vaginal delivery without epidural analgesia were allocated to the vaginal delivery group; and 84 women who had previously had only caesarean delivery were allocated to the caesarean delivery group. Participants’ levels of anxiety before insertion were measured using the Beck Anxiety Inventory; participants’ levels of pain (anticipated pain and pain at the various stages of IUD insertion and 15 min after the procedure) were assessed using a visual analogue scale.
Results: While the experience of caesarean delivery and pre-procedure anxiety were found to be associated with higher pain scores, the presence of negative perceptions of IUDs was the most significant predictor of pain during IUD insertion (p < .001). Experience of vaginal delivery under epidural analgesia was associated with lower pain scores at IUD insertion (p < .001).
Conclusion: Fear of IUD insertion pain, pre-procedure anxiety and negative perceptions of IUDs may lead women to anticipate or feel a higher level of pain. Patient education to correct negative perceptions of IUDs and counselling to inform women of the true benefits and risks of IUDs and lower pre-procedure anxiety are a suggested strategy to manage IUD insertion pain in parous women.
In Study I, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) was administered to 425 undergraduates. Analyses yielded a three component solution comprising (a) rumination, (b) magnification, and (c) helplessness. In Study 2, 30 undergraduate participants were classified as catastrophizers (
n = 15) or noncatastrophizers (
n = 15) on the basis of their PCS scores and participated in a cold pressor procedure. Catastrophizers reported significantly more negative pain-related thoughts, greater emotional distress, and greater pain intensity than noncatastrophizers. Study 3 examined the relation between PCS scores, negative pain-related thoughts, and distress in 28 individuals undergoing an aversive electrodiagnostic medical procedure. Catastrophizers reported more negative pain-related thoughts, more emotional distress, and more pain than noncatastrophizers. Study 4 examined the relation between the PCS and measures of depression, trait anxiety, negative affectivity, and fear of pain. Analyses revealed moderate correlations among these measures, but only the PCS contributed significant unique variance to the prediction of pain intensity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Objective:
We compared pain and the ease of insertion of two different types of intrauterine devices (IUDs; the levonorgestrel intrauterine systems 52 mg (LNG-IUS 52 mg) and the copper-bearing IUD [TCu380A]) among nulligravidas and parous women with and without caesarean delivery.
Methods:
A cross-sectional study assessed pain referred by women and ease of insertion of the two IUDs models. We applied a visual analogue scale (VAS) to assess pain, while the ease of insertion was defined by healthcare professionals.
Results:
We assessed 1076 women, including 334 nulligravidas and 566 parous women who had had at least one caesarean delivery and 176 women with history of only vaginal delivery. Regarding pain at IUD placement, 26 (2.5%) women reported no pain, 167 (16.4%) light pain, 319 (31.3%) moderate and 506 (49.7%) intense pain. The highest scores for pain were reported by nulligravidas (67.2%, p = 0.001), while the mean pain score was higher in the LNG-IUS 52 mg group. Difficulties reported by healthcare providers were more frequent in the nulligravidas (21.2%) and women with previous caesarean delivery (16.9%).
Conclusions:
Our findings suggested differences between the two IUDs tested, with higher pain associated with the LNG-IUS 52 mg, and highlights the need for pain management, mainly among nulligravida and women with history of caesarean delivery.SHORT CONDENSATIONIntense pain at insertion was more related to nulligravida than parous women and more pain with placement of LNG-IUS 52 mg IUDs than TCu380A IUDs. Nevertheless, our results confirmed that ease of IUD placement was between 80% to 90% of all insertions, being more common in parous women without previous caesarean delivery.
Objective:
To investigate whether a 20-cc buffered 1% lidocaine paracervical block decreases pain during intrauterine device (IUD) placement.
Methods:
In a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled trial, women were assigned to receive either a 20-cc buffered 1% lidocaine paracervical block or no block before IUD placement. The primary outcome was pain with IUD placement measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale. Our sample size had 80% power (α=0.05) to detect a 20-mm difference in visual analog scale scores with a SD of 28 mm. Secondary outcomes included pain with speculum placement, paracervical block administration, tenaculum placement, 5 minutes postprocedure, and overall pain perception.
Results:
From October 7, 2014, through October 26, 2017, 64 women were enrolled and analyzed (33 in the paracervical block arm, 31 in the no-block arm). There were no differences in baseline demographics between the groups. Women who received the paracervical block reported less pain with IUD placement compared with women who received no block (median visual analog scale score of 33 mm vs 54 mm, P=.002). Pain was significantly less in the intervention group for uterine sounding (30 mm vs 47 mm, P=.005), 5 minutes after placement (12 mm vs 27 mm, P=.005), and overall pain perception (30 mm vs 51 mm, P=.015). Participants who received the paracervical block experienced more pain with block administration compared with placebo (30 mm vs 8 mm, P=.003). There was no perceived pain difference for speculum insertion (10 mm vs 6 mm, P=.447) or tenaculum placement (15 mm vs 10 mm, P=.268).
Conclusion:
A 20-cc buffered 1% lidocaine paracervical block decreases pain with IUD placement (primary outcome), uterine sounding (secondary outcome), and 5 minutes after placement (secondary outcome). Although paracervical block administration can be painful, perception of pain for overall IUD placement procedure is lower compared with no block.
Clinical trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02219308.