Factors associated with a negative Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) response with intrauterine device placement: A retrospective survey of HER Salt Lake participants

In an established cohort of HER Salt Lake Contraceptive Initiative participants with a prior intrauterine device (IUD) placement, we sought to (1) define the proportion of participants who reported a negative Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) response, (2) explore factors associated with an un...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Contraception (Stoneham) 2024-05, Vol.133, p.110385-110385, Article 110385
Main Authors: Gero, Alexandra, Elliott, Sarah, Baayd, Jami, Cohen, Susanna, Simmons, Rebecca G., Gawron, Lori M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Acceptability
Contraception
Female
Humans
Ibuprofen
Intrauterine device
Intrauterine Devices - adverse effects
Pain
Pain - etiology
Retrospective Studies
Surveys and Questionnaires
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In an established cohort of HER Salt Lake Contraceptive Initiative participants with a prior intrauterine device (IUD) placement, we sought to (1) define the proportion of participants who reported a negative Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) response, (2) explore factors associated with an unacceptable PASS response, and (3) identify pain management preferences for IUD placement. A retrospective survey was sent to 1440 HER Salt Lake IUD users. A PASS question queried IUD placement pain experience acceptability. We explored associations between an unacceptable PASS response and sociodemographic, reproductive and other individual characteristics using t-tests, chi-square tests, and multivariable logistic regression. Of those surveyed, 620 responded (43%), and 41.6% reported an unacceptable PASS response. Those with an unacceptable PASS response reported a significantly higher experienced pain level (79.2 mm vs 51.8 mm; p 
ISSN:0010-7824
1879-0518
DOI:10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110385