A survey of GP views on intra-uterine contraception

Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 81-84

  Gupta, Sunanda ^a   Miller, John E ^b  

^a NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE   (United Kingdom)

^b Bridge House Surgery   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Attitudes; Intra uterine contraception; Knowledge

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; EXPERIENCE; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HUMAN; INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; RELIABILITY; SEX DIFFERENCE; SKILL;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; ENGLAND; FAMILY PRACTICE; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INTRAUTERINE DEVICES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SEX FACTORS;

EID: 0034113684     PISSN: 14711893     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1783/147118900101194300     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. OPCS. General Household Survey. Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1989.
2. United Nations Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis. World Contraceptive Use (Wall Chart). New York UN, 1994.
3. Forrest JD. US women's perceptions and attitudes about the IUD. Obstet & Gyn Survey 1996; 51(12): 530-534.
4. Forrest JD. Acceptability of IUDs in the United States. In: Bardon CW, Mischell DR Jr, eds. Proceedings from the Fourth International Conference on IUD's. Boston: Butterworth Heinemann, 1994: 90-99.
5. Newton J, Tacchi D. Long term use of copper intrauterine devices - A statement from the Medical Advisory Committee of the Family Planning Association and the National Association of Family Planning doctors. Lancet 1990; 335: 1322-23.
6. Measham AR, Hatcher RA, Arnold CB. Physicians beliefs, attitudes and socio-demographic characteristics. Fam Plann 1974; 5 (4): 140-143.
7. Makkonen K, Hemminki E, Tuimela R. Pros and cons of intrauterine contraception - Do perceptions of users and physicians differ? Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care 1994; 12: 191-196.
8. Russell ML, Love EJ. Contraceptive prescription: Physicians beliefs, attitudes and socio-demographic characteristics. Canadian Journal of Public Health 1991; 82: 259-263.
9. Weisberg E, Fraser IS, Goss S. The decline in popularity of the IUD: a survey of GPattitudes and practices. New South Wales. Medical Journal of Australia 1994; 60: 19.
10. Grimes DA. The intrauterine device, pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility. The confusion between hypothesis and knowledge. Fertility Sterility 1992; 58: 670.
11. RCOG Study Group. The prevention of pelvic infection. In: Templeton et al (eds). London: RCOG Press, 1996: 267-270.
12. WHO Scientific Report. Eligibility Guidelines for Cu IUDs 1995. Population Reports. Series B No. 6:28-30
13. Lete I, Morales P, de Pablo JL. Use of IUD in nulliparous women: personal experience over a 12 year period. European J of Contraception and RHC 1998; 3: 190-193.
14. Croxatto MB, Oritz ME and Valdez E. IUD mechanisms of action. In: Bandin CW, Mischel DR jr, eds. Proceedings from the Fourth International Conference on IUDs. Boston: Butterworth, Heinemann 1994: 44-62.
15. WHO special programme of research, development and research training in human reproduction: The TCu 380A, TCu 220C, Multiload 250 and NovaT IUDs at 3, 5 and 7 year of use. Contraception 1990; 42: 141-157.
16. Farley TMM, Rosenberg MJ, Rowe P, et al. IUD and PID: an international perspective. Lancet 1992; 339: 785-788.