Acceptability of intrauterine device insertion without sedation for young nulliparous people: a mixed-methods study
Sarah M. Wright
A B , Prudence Kidman A , Clare Boerma A C and Jessica R. Botfield A D *
A
B
C
D
Abstract
There is limited understanding of the pain experiences of young nulliparous people undergoing intrauterine device (IUD) insertion without sedation and how this influences the acceptability of the procedure. Although quantitative studies have measured pain intensity during insertion, little research has explored how young people perceive, experience, and contextualise this. We therefore conducted a mixed-methods study to better understand pain experiences and how this affects acceptability.
Patients aged 16–30 years getting an IUD at a family planning clinic were recruited. They completed pre- and post-insertion surveys to rate anticipated and actual pain associated with the insertion. Interviews were conducted post-insertion to discuss expectations, pain, and acceptability. We used a convergent mixed-methods design with merged integration of qualitative and quantitative data for analysis.
Altogether, 30 young people participated. Most used simple oral analgesia and local anaesthetic spray to the cervix. On average, participants rated anticipated pain as 6.63/10 and actual pain as 5.88/10. Despite describing the procedure as very painful, most felt the pain was short-lived and therefore tolerable, and that their analgesia was sufficient. Overall, participants reported the procedure as acceptable. Higher acceptability was significantly associated with feeling that their pain relief was sufficient, that the insertion went as they expected, and that they perceived the benefits of the IUD outweighed the discomfort.
Although the IUD insertion was very painful for young nulliparous patients, it was not the only determinant of insertion acceptability. Findings emphasise the importance of clinicians providing sufficient education and information about IUD insertions to support preparation and manage expectations, in addition to providing effective pain management.
Keywords: acceptability, contraception, contraceptive procedure, insertion, intrauterine device, IUD, nulliparous, pain, young people.
References
1 Stoddard A, McNicholas C, Peipert JF. Efficacy and safety of long-acting reversible contraception. Drugs 2011; 71(8): 969-980.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
2 Temple-Smith M, Sanci L. LARCs as first-line contraception – what can general practitioners advise young women? Aust Fam Physician 2020; 46(10): 710-715.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
3 Winner B, Peipert JF, Zhao Q, et al. Effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception. N Engl J Med 2012; 366(21): 1998-2007.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
4 Wright SM, Concepcion K, McGeechan K. Contraception in Australia 2005–2018. Ashfield, NSW: Family Planning NSW; 2020: pp. 1–74. Available at https://www.fpnsw.org.au/sites/default/files/assets/Contraception-in-Australia_2005-2018_v20200716.pdf
5 Asker C, Stokes-Lampard H, Beavan J, Wilson S. What is it about intrauterine devices that women find unacceptable? Factors that make women non-users: a qualitative study. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2006; 32(2): 89-94.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
6 Garrett CC, Keogh LA, Kavanagh A, Tomnay J, Hocking JS. Understanding the low uptake of long-acting reversible contraception by young women in Australia: a qualitative study. BMC Womens Health 2015; 15(1): 72.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
7 Lodge G, Sanci L, Temple-Smith MJ. GPs’ perspectives on prescribing intrauterine contraceptive devices. Aust Fam Physician 2017; 46(5): 328-333.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
8 Weston MRS, Martins SL, Neustadt AB, Gilliam ML. Factors influencing uptake of intrauterine devices among postpartum adolescents: a qualitative study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206(1): 40.e1-40.e7.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
9 Long C, Grounds E. Having an IUD inserted can be excruciatingly painful. Why aren’t women being warned or given stronger pain relief? ABC News; 2022. Available at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-31/what-can-be-done-to-make-iuds-less-painful/101584670 [verified January 2023]
10 Wu J, Trahair E, Happ M, Swartz J. TikTok, #IUD, and user experience with intrauterine devices reported on social media. Obstet Gynecol 2023; 141(1): 215-217.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
11 Akintomide H, Brima N, Sewell RDE, Stephenson JM. Patients’ experiences and providers’ observations on pain during intrauterine device insertion. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2015; 20(4): 319-326.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
12 Dina B, Peipert LJ, Zhao Q, Peipert JF. Anticipated pain as a predictor of discomfort with intrauterine device placement. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218(2): 236.e1-236.e9.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
13 Bahamondes L, Mansour D, Fiala C, Kaunitz AM, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Practical advice for avoidance of pain associated with insertion of intrauterine contraceptives. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2014; 40(1): 54-60.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
14 Gemzell-Danielsson K, Mansour D, Fiala C, Kaunitz AM, Bahamondes L. Management of pain associated with the insertion of intrauterine contraceptives. Hum Reprod Update 2013; 19(4): 419-427.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
15 Lopez LM, Bernholc A, Zeng Y, et al. Interventions for pain with intrauterine device insertion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015(7): CD007373.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
16 Anthoulakis C, Iordanidou E, Vatopoulou A. Pain perception during levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device insertion in nulliparous women: a systematic review. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2018; 31(6): 549-556.e4.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
17 McNicholas CP, Madden T, Zhao Q, Secura G, Allsworth JE, Peipert JF. Cervical lidocaine for IUD insertional pain: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207(5): 384.e1-384.e6.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
18 Bayer LL, Ahuja S, Allen RH, et al. Best practices for reducing pain associated with intrauterine device placement. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2025; 232(5): 409-421.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
19 Osborn M, Rodham K. Insights into pain: a review of qualitative research. Rev Pain 2010; 4(1): 2-7.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
20 Callahan DG, Garabedian LF, Harney KF, DiVasta AD. Will it hurt? The intrauterine device insertion experience and long-term acceptability among adolescents and young women. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2019; 32(6): 615-621.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
21 Marions L, Lövkvist L, Taube A, Johansson M, Dalvik H, Øverlie I. Use of the levonorgestrel releasing-intrauterine system in nulliparous women – a non-interventional study in Sweden. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2011; 16(2): 126-134.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
22 Curry L, Nunez-Smith M. Mixed methods in health sciences research: a practical primer. SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2015. doi:10.4135/9781483390659
23 R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. 2022. Available at https://www.R-project.org/
24 RStudio Team. RStudio: integrated development environment for R. 2022. Available at https://www.rstudio.com/
25 Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. JOSS 2019; 4(43): 1686.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
26 Robinson D, Hayes A, Couch S. Broom: convert statistical objects into tidy tibbles. 2022. Available at https://broom.tidymodels.org
27 Grolemund G, Wickham H. Dates and times made easy with lubridate. J Stat Softw 2011; 40(3): 1-25.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
28 Harrell F Jr. Hmisc: harrell miscellaneous. 2022. Available at https://hbiostat.org/r/hmisc/
29 Hunter TA, Sonalkar S, Schreiber CA, Perriera LK, Sammel MD, Akers AY. Anticipated pain during intrauterine device insertion. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2020; 33(1): 27-32.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
30 Allen RH, Carey MS, Raker C, Goyal V, Matteson K. A prospective cohort study of pain with intrauterine device insertion among women with and without vaginal deliveries. J Obstet Gynaecol 2014; 34(3): 263-267.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
31 Sairally BZF, Smith PP, De Silva PM, O’Connor S, Yates C, Clark TJ. Inhaled methoxyflurane (Penthrox®) as a novel pain relief for outpatient hysteroscopy and other gynaecological procedures. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2024; 302: 206-210.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
32 Caddy C, Temple-Smith M, Coombe J. Do women feel unprepared for the experience of an intrauterine device insertion: findings from an Australian study. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2025; 57(3): 368-373.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
33 Felix-Faure C, Coombe J, Williams H, Caddy C. What do Australian contraceptive users say about their experience of having an intrauterine device inserted? Findings from an online, qualitative survey. Contraception 2025; 145: 110836.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
34 Akdemir Y, Karadeniz M. The relationship between pain at IUD insertion and negative perceptions, anxiety and previous mode of delivery. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2019; 24(3): 240-245.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
35 Usinger KM, Gola SB, Weis M, Smaldone A. Intrauterine contraception continuation in adolescents and young women: a systematic review. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2016; 29(6): 659-667.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
