Reasons for the low level of IUD use in El Salvador

International Family Planning Perspectives

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 26-31

  Katz, Karen R ^a   Johnson, Laura M ^a   Janowitz, Barbara ^a   Carranza, José Miguel ^b  

^a FAMILY HEALTH INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^b Asesoría en Psicología Industrialy Mercadeo   (El Salvador)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 48249142448     PISSN: None     EISSN: 01903187     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3088272     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Grimes D and Hubacher D, IUDs: time for a renaissance, American Family Physician, 1988, 58(9): 1963-1964.
2. Measure DHS, STAT compiler, , accessed Jan. 4, 2001.
3. Mishell D and Sulak P, The IUD: dispelling the myths and assessing the potential, Dialogues in Contraception, 1997, 5(2): 1-4.
4. Forrest JD, U.S. women's perceptions of and attitudes about the IUD, Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, 1996, 51(12): S30-S34.
5. Carolina Population Center Evaluation Project, IUD use in Morocco: identifying barriers and evaluating progress, Chapel Hill, NC, USA: Carolina Population Center Evaluation Project, 1997.
6. Bailey PE et al., An evaluation of reproductive health as an approach to family planning in Ceara, Brazil, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, Washington, DC, Nov. 8-12, 1992.
7. Asociación Demográfica Salvadoreña (ADS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Encuesta Nacional de Salud Familiar: Informe Final. FESAL-98, San Salvador, El Salvador: ADS and CDC, 2000.
8. Hillis SD et al., Poststerilization regret: findings from the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 1999, 93(6): 889-895.
9. ADS and CDC, 2000, op. cit. (see reference 7).
10. Huntington D and Schuler SR, The simulated client method: evaluating client-provider interactions in family planning clinics, Studies in Family Planning, 1993, 24(3): 187-193.
11. Bernard HR, Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications, 2000, p. 210.
12. World Health Organization (WHO), WHO Scientific Working Group on Improving Access to Quality Care in Family Planning, Medical Eligibility Criteria for Initiating and Continuing Use of Contraceptive Methods, Geneva: WHO, 1996; and International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), IPPF International Medical Advisory Panel, Statement on contraception for clients who are HIV positive, IPPF Medical Bulletin, 1991, 25: 1-2.
13. Sinei S et al., Complications of use of intrauterine devices among HIV-1-infected women, Lancet, 1998, 351(9111): 1238-1241.
14. Franco L et al., Quality of case management of sexually transmitted diseases: comparison of the methods for assessing the performance of providers, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 1997, 75(6): 523-532.