Online survey reveals preferences for information on IUDs and contraceptive implants among Australian women, indicating the role of healthcare providers.
Background Information about contraceptive options is important for informed decision making. We aimed to understand the information needs and preferences of potential users of intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants, methods that are underutilised in Australia. Methods We conducted an online survey of Australian women aged 18–45 years. The survey comprised mostly close-ended questions, with a few opportunities for free-text comments. Results In total, 1745 women participated in the survey. Participants had a mean age of 31 years; most identified as heterosexual (67%) and said that they were in a relationship (71%). Overwhelmingly, participants said that the most important information they wanted to know prior to using a contraceptive implant or intrauterine device was potential side effects (97%), signs that something is wrong (91%), effectiveness (90%), cost (87%), how and where to access the method (82%) and the experiences of other people who have used the method (81%). Most participants said that they go to their healthcare provider for information about contraception (86%). However, 78% said they also turn to the internet, and 15% said they use social media. When asked to indicate their preferred source of contraceptive information, participants reported their healthcare provider (93%), the internet (65%), friends (42%) and social media (20%). Conclusions Our findings suggest that those considering using contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices have clear information needs, and this information should be provided to consumers during contraceptive counselling by a healthcare provider. Although healthcare providers are a preferred and trusted source of information, participants also reported seeking information from the internet.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Coombe et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: