ArticleReproductive health2026
Particular promotion of the intrauterine system to "vulnerable" adolescents: a qualitative exploration of hormonal contraceptive prescription practices.
Article in Reproductive health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have suggested that the intrauterine system increases the risk of depression, particularly in adolescents. However, these studies relied on national registry data collected at a time when medical guidelines discouraged adolescent use of this contraceptive method. As a result, the adolescents who appeared in these registries represented an atypical group who had this contraceptive prescribed against medical recommendations. Consequently, unknown or unmeasured participant characteristics may have introduced confounding variables and influenced conclusions. Although prescription guidelines for intrauterine systems now include adolescents, selective prescribing may persist. If so, it could affect future studies on hormonal contraceptives, even though the decision is clinically sound. We thus aimed to explore current contraceptive prescription practices, investigating user characteristics, policies, and contextual factors that might influence prescribing the intrauterine system rather than other hormonal contraceptive products, or vice versa.
methodsWe conducted focus group interviews with 23 healthcare professionals employed at six health centers in Norway, prescribing hormonal contraceptive drugs to adolescent women. We used thematic analysis to identify factors that can influence which products are recommended and requested.
resultsOur analysis generated three themes: "Old conceptions die hard" describes skepticism among family doctors and mothers regarding adolescent use of the intrauterine system, "Particular promotion of the intrauterine system to "vulnerable" adolescents" outlines the practice of healthcare professionals recommending this contraceptive method to individuals identified as vulnerable, and "What tips the scale: Pros, peeves and other people" discusses influences on adolescents' contraceptive choice.
conclusionsThis exploratory study suggests that both prescription practices and personal preferences influence choice of contraceptive product, and that it is not arbitrary who has the intrauterine device inserted. Future quantitative research should incorporate the factors identified in this exploration, to minimize their confounding effects when aiming to draw causal conclusions on the effects of the intrauterine system on mental health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.