DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20190889

Study of knowledge, attitude, practices regarding PPIUCD among antenatal women at a tertiary care centre in Northern India

Mona Asnani, Anjoo Agarwal, Renu Singh

Abstract


Background: PPIUCD has been introduced in the national family welfare program since March 2010 in several states. AN IUCD can be inserted in 48 hours postpartum, referred to here as postpartum intrauterine contraceptive device. This study was done to assess the Knowledge, attitude and practice of postpartum Intrauterine contraceptive device in antenatal patients at a tertiary care centre in Northern India.

Methods: This is a questionnaire based cross sectional observational study including 350 antenatal women attending antenatal OPD over a period of 6 months.

Results: Out of these 350 women, 126 women (36%) had knowledge of PPIUCD. only 30 % of women had previous knowledge about PPIUCD however only 10 % of women practiced it in the past. After appropriate counselling 18% of women agreed for insertion of PPIUCD after this delivery.

Conclusions: The study concludes that the antenatal women had poor knowledge regarding PPIUCD. Practices were even worse. This might be attributed to low education ,  refusal by family especially male partner, and religious beliefs. But once appropriate knowledge and information is provided, attitude gradually changes.


Keywords


Knowledge, PPIUCD, Practices

Full Text:

PDF

References


Lopez. Farfan JA, Maclel. Martinez M, Velez. Machrro IJ. Vazquez. Estrada L. Application of Mirena during caesarean section. Europe J Contracep, Reproduct Health Care 2010;15(1):165.

National Rural Health Mission Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Government of India.JSY. Available at http://www.mohfw.nic.in/layout_09 06;.pdf.

WHO Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. Geneva. WHO, 2010.

Byrd JE, Hyde JS, DeLamater JD, Plant EA. Sexuality during pregnancy and the year postpartum. J Fam Pract.1998; 47(4):305-8.

Kappa N, Curtis KM. Review Article Intrauterine Device insertion during the postpartum period: a systemic review. Contraception. 2009;80(4):327-36.

Safwat AM, Momen AK, Omar MS, Hossam TS. Acceptability for the Use of Postpartum Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices: Assiut Experience. Med Princ Pract. 2003;12(3):170-5.

Mao J. Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Family Planning. A Study of Tezu Village, Manipur (India). Int J Biological Anthropol. 2006;1(1):5-10.

Thomas D, Maluccio J. Fertility, contraceptive choice, and public policy in Zimbabwe. World Bank Econom Rev 1996;10(1):189-222.

Choudhary RH. The influence of female education, labour force participation and age at marriage on fertility behavior in Bangladesh. Social Biol 1984;31(1-2):59-74.

Bhasin SK, Pant M, Metha M, Kumar S. Prevalence of usages of different contraceptive methods in East Delhi A cross sectional study. IJCM. 2005;30(3):53-5.

Doley RPB. A retrospective study on acceptability and complications of PPIUCD insertion. J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2016;5(31):1631-4.

Saroj K, Neha G. Acceptability for the use of postpartum intrauterine contraceptive devices, Zenana Hospital, Jaipur. Int J Sci Res. 2016;5(5):401-9.

Kant S, Archana S, Singh AK, Ahamed F, Haldar P. Acceptance rate, probability of follow-up, and expulsion of postpartum intrauterine contraceptive device offered at two primary health centers, North India. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2016;5(4):770-6.

Yadav S, Joshi R, Solanki M. Knowledge attitude practice and acceptance of postpartum intrauterine devices among postpartum women in a tertiary care center. Int J Reprod Contracept Obs Gynecol. 2017;6(4):1507-10.

Nayak AK, Jain MK. Experience on Awareness, Acceptability, Safety, Efficacy. Complications and expulsion of postpartum intrauterine contraceptive device insertion. Int J Sci Study. 2017;5(1):207-12.

Kathpalia SK, Mustafa MS. Awareness about postpartum insertion of intrauterine device among antenatal cases. Med J Armed Forces India. 2015; 71(3):221-4

Nigam A, Ahmad A, Sharma A, Saith P, Batra S. Postpartum Intrauterine Device Refusal in Delhi: Reasons Analyzed. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2018;68(3):208-13.