Accuracy of providers' assessment of pain during intrauterine device insertion

Differing Approaches to Pain Management for Intrauterine Device Insertion and Maintenance: A Scoping Review

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are considered a reliable contraceptive option for women, but they can come with side effects. There is a disconnect in standard guidelines for IUD insertion within and without the U.S. The objective of this review was to address a gap in the literature regarding official procedures for pain management during IUD implantation. This scoping review was initiated using keywords to extract relevant articles from multiple databases: U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health (PubMed), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE, Ovid). Initially, 457 articles were identified and after a rigorous screening and selection process, 37 articles were chosen to be further assessed to ascertain if they met the study's inclusion criteria. Those 37 articles were further evaluated fully to check for relevancy. From that process, 19 articles were chosen for the review, and all passed quality assessment evaluations using the JB Appraisal Tools. To best address the research question, the data from the 19 articles were divided into three categories: 1) circumstantial factors, 2) non-pharmacological methods, and 3) pharmacological methods. Circumstantially, women with previous vaginal deliveries experienced the lowest pain during the procedure, and nulligravid (never pregnant) women experienced the most pain. Lower pain scores were reported by lactating women compared to non-lactating. Black women experienced the most anticipated pain compared to other races. Regarding non-pharmacological methods, different insertion techniques, tools, and the use of a cold compress were found to not affect the level of pain during IUD insertion. Lastly, it was shown that pharmacological methods such as lidocaine gel, lidocaine paracervical block, and lidocaine combined with either diclofenac or prilocaine decreased pain scores at different time stamps of the procedure. Also, oral ketorolac and a vaginal combination of misoprostol and dinoprostone helped reduce pain. Findings from this scoping review revealed a lack of uniformity across practices when performing IUD insertions, possibly due to differences in procedures across circumstantial factors, non-pharmacological methods, and pharmacological methods. More research is needed to investigate the intricacies of pain with IUD insertion. Moving forward, especially following a potential increase in the use of IUDs after the reversal of Roe v. Wade, establishing this gap may lead to a more refined standardized protocol to mitigate pain with IUD insertions.

10% lidocaine spray for pain control during intrauterine device insertion: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Various medications have been investigated for their efficacy in pain reduction during intrauterine device (IUD) insertion, but there is currently no standard recommendation. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of 10% lidocaine spray in reducing pain during copper-containing intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) insertion.

METHODS

This study was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Reproductive-age women were randomised at a 1:1 ratio into 10% lidocaine spray or placebo spray group. A 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to evaluate pain during several steps of the IUD insertion procedure, and after the procedure.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-four women were included and 62 women were randomised in each group. Baseline characteristics between groups were similar. The 10% lidocaine spray group demonstrated significantly lower median VAS immediately after IUD insertion than the placebo group (2.95 (IQR=1.00-5.63) vs 5.00 (IQR=3.35-7.00), respectively; p=0.002). Similarly, women receiving 10% lidocaine spray reported significantly lower median VAS than those receiving placebo during tenaculum use and uterine sounding. The maximum median VAS occurred immediately after Cu-IUD insertion. The proportion of women who reported VAS≥4 during uterine sounding and after IUD placement was significantly lower in the 10% lidocaine group than in the placebo group (p<0.05). Median change in VAS from baseline to IUD placement was significantly different between 10% lidocaine spray group and placebo group (1.85 (IQR=0.08-4.03) vs 3.6 (IQR=2.40-5.80), respectively; p=0.004).

CONCLUSION

10% lidocaine spray was found to be an effective local anaesthetic method for reducing pain during insertion of Cu-IUD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03870711.

Physician experience is associated with greater underestimation of patient pain

OBJECTIVE

Procedural pain is unique in that physicians simultaneously cause and assess it. Experienced male physicians are known to underestimate their female patients' pain more than other physicians. However, it is unknown whether this also occurs in obstetrics/gynecology, where all patients are females. This study addresses the gap in literature on procedural pain assessment accuracy.

METHODS

The present research compares paired pain evaluations from 20 obstetricians/gynecologists and their 92 female patients.

RESULTS

Our data demonstrate that patients' reported pain levels (M = 5.53, SD = 2.7) were significantly higher than their physicians' pain estimates (M = 4.89, SD = 2.19), t = 2.64, p < 0.005. The gap between patients' and physicians' pain estimates was greatest among physicians with the greatest procedural experience (M = 1.49, SD = 2.24), f = 5.72, p < 0.005. Male physicians underestimated their patients' pain significantly more than female physicians do, t = 2.27, p < 0.05.

CONCLUSION

Our results shed light on systematic underestimation of procedural pain and highlight the significance of experience and sex differences in pain evaluation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Physicians' experience influences their perception of patient pain while performing procedures. Experienced male physicians, even those who exclusively treat female patients, need to be aware of this ubiquitous bias in assessing their female patients' procedural pain.

Anticipated Pain During Intrauterine Device Insertion

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To identify predictors of anticipated pain with intrauterine device (IUD) insertion in adolescents and young women.

DESIGN

We performed linear regression to identify demographic, sexual/gynecologic history, and mood covariates associated with anticipated pain using a visual analogue scale pain score collected as part of a single-blind randomized trial of women who received a 13.5-mg levonorgestrel IUD.

SETTING

Three academic family planning clinics in Philadelphia Pennsylvania.

PARTICIPANTS

Ninety-three adolescents and young adult women aged 14-22 years.

INTERVENTION

Participants received either a 1% lidocaine or sham paracervical block.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Anticipated pain measured using a visual analogue scale before and perceived pain at 6 time points during the IUD insertion procedure.

RESULTS

Black or African American participants had a median anticipated pain score of 68 (interquartile range [IQR], 52-83), White participants had a median anticipated pain of 51 (IQR, 35-68), whereas participants of other races had a median anticipated pain score of 64 (IQR, 36-73); P = .012. In multivariate analysis, race was the only covariate that significantly predicted anticipated pain at IUD insertion. Women with anticipated pain scores above the median had significantly higher perceived pain during all timepoints of the IUD insertion procedure.

CONCLUSION

Increased anticipated pain is associated with increased perceived pain with IUD insertion. Black adolescent women experience greater anticipated pain with IUD insertion. This population might benefit from counseling and clinical measures to reduce this barrier to IUD use.

Practical Tips for Intrauterine Device Counseling, Insertion, and Pain Relief in Adolescents: An Update

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have endorsed intrauterine devices as first-line contraceptive choices for nulliparous and parous adolescents. Practical concerns about intrauterine devices might be barriers to use for teens and clinicians; this review is devoted to "practical tips" for clinicians, on the basis of an update of the available literature as well as the author's clinical experience. Counseling about contraceptive choices, preventive guidance about possible side effects, informed consent, and pain management are addressed to promote successful use of this long-acting reversible contraption option.

Postinsertional Pain after Intrauterine Device Placement among Nulliparous Adolescents

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To quantify the "normal" adolescent experience after intrauterine device insertion, to provide appropriate counseling for future adolescents.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Marshall University Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology generalist and adolescent gynecology clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Nulliparous adolescents age 13-18 years and parous adults 18 years of age or older who received a levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS).

INTERVENTIONS

Visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score and medication log was used for data collection for 2 weeks after LNG-IUS insertion. A separate chart review was completed for demographic factors and indications for procedure.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

VAS pain scores and medication use was compared between groups.

RESULTS

Ninety-three subjects returned the VAS record and medication log (46 adolescents and 47 adults). There was no difference in the incidence of endometriosis or dysmenorrhea, but there was a higher prevalence of menorrhagia among adolescents (30/46, 65.2% vs 10/47, 21.3%; P < .001). Forty-five of forty-seven (95.7%) adults vs 25/46 (54.3%) adolescents had contraception as an indication for intrauterine device use (P < .001). Pain scores were statistically higher among the adolescent group each day (P < .05) in the 2-week study period. The greatest mean differences occurred in the first 4 days. More adolescents (15/46, 32.6%) than adults (6/47, 12.8%) had a pain score greater than 5 during the first 3 days (P = .022). A statistical difference in amount of ibuprofen recorded was only noted on day 1 (P = .023) and day 4 (P = .046).

CONCLUSION

Nulliparous adolescents who undergo LNG-IUS placement experience more postinsertional discomfort compared with parous adults; however, this method should still be considered first-line treatment in this age group.

Lidocaine for pain control during intrauterine device insertion

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of topical lidocaine spray, cream and injection on pain perception during intrauterine device (IUD) insertion.

METHODS

Multiparous women of reproductive age were randomized into control, lidocaine cream, spray and injection groups. A 10 cm visual analog scale was used for all patients to evaluate pain during the three steps of the IUD insertion procedure. Baseline pain assessment was made immediately after the administration of analgesics, the second pain assessment was performed immediately after use of the tenaculum, and the third pain assessment was performed after IUD insertion.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients were enrolled in the study. The groups were similar in terms of demographic characteristics. The lidocaine injection group exhibited higher baseline pain scores (P < 0.001). Pain associated with tenaculum use was lower in the lidocaine spray group. Pain related to IUD insertion was lower in the lidocaine spray and injection groups (P < 0.001); however, lidocaine spray was superior to injection for the reduction of IUD insertion related pain (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Lidocaine spray is a good option for reducing the pain experienced during insertion of an IUD. It reduces pain related to both tenaculum use and IUD insertion. Spray application is both easy and rapid. Paracervical lidocaine injection also reduces pain during IUD insertion, but has no effect on tenaculum-related pain; moreover, the injection itself is painful. Therefore, this option is not a plausible method for reducing pain during IUD insertion.

Intrauterine contraception insertion pain: nursing interventions to improve patient experience

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To examine factors which contribute to the individual's experience of pain in relation to intrauterine contraception insertion and determine evidence-based nursing strategies to best assess and manage this pain.

BACKGROUND

Nurses are increasingly involved in consultations regarding intrauterine contraception. However, concerns regarding painful or difficult insertion may inhibit uptake and discourage nurses from promoting or inserting intrauterine contraception.

DESIGN

Integrative review.

METHODS

Database searches of CINAHL, PubMed, Wiley Online Library and the Cochrane Collaboration for relevant literature. Eight papers met the inclusion criteria and were analysed using an integrative review process.

RESULTS

Physical causes and pharmacological interventions for insertion pain have been thoroughly investigated. Absence of previous vaginal delivery and anxiety may increase the likelihood of procedural pain. The literature fails to conclusively determine any universally effective prophylactic analgesia. Cervical anaesthesia may be beneficial in some cases and oral analgesia may relieve postprocedural pain. Distraction in the form of conversation, music or television can be effective in reducing anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of physical, psychological and environmental factors contribute to the individual's pain experience. Nurses have the potential to make a significant impact on pain outcomes by demonstrating clinical expertise and creating a trustful environment. Giving reliable information, acknowledging the significance of anxiety and providing reassurance and distraction are effective pain reducing strategies. Research into nonpharmacological approaches is warranted, especially those which reduce anxiety.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Increasing uptake of long-acting reversible contraception is a public health goal. Providing effective pain management strategies to improve patient experience may encourage more nurses to recommend, or enhance their scope of practice to include, intrauterine contraception insertion.

Healthcare providers' accuracy in assessing patients' pain: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Healthcare providers satisfy an important role in providing appropriate care in the prevention and management of acute and chronic pain, highlighting the importance of providers' abilities to accurately assess patients' pain. We systematically reviewed the literature on healthcare providers' pain assessment accuracy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and PsycINFO to identify studies addressing providers' pain assessment accuracy, or studies that compared patients' self-report of pain with providers' assessment of pain.

RESULTS

60 studies met the inclusion criteria. Healthcare providers had moderate to good pain assessment accuracy. Physicians and nurses showed similar pain assessment accuracy. Differences in pain assessment accuracy were found according to providers' clinical experience, the timing of the pain assessment, vulnerable patient populations and patients' pain intensity.

CONCLUSION

Education and training aimed at improving providers with poor pain assessment accuracy is discussed especially in relation to those with limited clinical experience (<4 years) or a great deal of clinical experience (>10 years) and those providing care for vulnerable patient populations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

More research on characteristics that influence providers' pain assessment accuracy and trainings to improve pain assessment accuracy in medical and continuing education may improve pain treatment for patients.

Interventions for pain with intrauterine device insertion

BACKGROUND

Fear of pain during insertion of intrauterine contraception (IUC) is a barrier to use of this method. IUC includes copper-containing intrauterine devices and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems. Interventions for pain control during IUC insertion include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), local cervical anesthetics, and cervical ripening agents such as misoprostol.

OBJECTIVES

To review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for reducing IUC insertion-related pain

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for trials in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. The most recent search was 22 June 2015. We examined reference lists of pertinent articles. For the initial review, we wrote to investigators to find other published or unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that evaluated an intervention for preventing IUC insertion-related pain. The comparison could have been a placebo, no intervention, or another active intervention. The primary outcomes were self-reported pain at tenaculum placement, during IUC insertion, and after IUC insertion (up to six hours).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data from eligible trials. For dichotomous variables, we calculated the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous variables, we computed the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. In meta-analysis of trials with different measurement scales, we used the standardized mean difference (SMD).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 trials with 5710 participants total; 29 were published from 2010 to 2015. Studies examined lidocaine, misoprostol, NSAIDs, and other interventions. Here we synthesize results from trials with sufficient outcome data and moderate- or high-quality evidence.For lidocaine, meta-analysis showed topical 2% gel had no effect on pain at tenaculum placement (two trials) or on pain during IUC insertion (three trials). Other formulations were effective compared with placebo in individual trials. Mean score for IUC-insertion pain was lower with lidocaine and prilocaine cream (MD -1.96, 95% CI -3.00 to -0.92). Among nulliparous women, topical 4% formulation showed lower scores for IUC-insertion pain assessed within 10 minutes (MD -15.90, 95% CI -22.77 to -9.03) and at 30 minutes later (MD -11.10, 95% CI -19.05 to -3.15). Among parous women, IUC-insertion pain was lower with 10% spray (median 1.00 versus 3.00). Compared with no intervention, pain at tenaculum placement was lower with 1% paracervical block (median 12 versus 28).For misoprostol, meta-analysis showed a higher mean score for IUC insertion compared with placebo (SMD 0.27, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.46; four studies). In meta-analysis, cramping was more likely with misoprostol (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.76; four studies). A trial with nulliparous women found a higher score for IUC-insertion pain with misoprostol (median 46 versus 34). Pain before leaving the clinic was higher for misoprostol in two trials with nulliparous women (MD 7.60, 95% CI 6.48 to 8.72; medians 35.5 versus 20.5). In one trial with nulliparous women, moderate or severe pain at IUC insertion was less likely with misoprostol (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.55). In the same trial, the misoprostol group was more likely to rate the experience favorably. Within two trials of misoprostol plus diclofenac, shivering, headache, or abdominal pain were more likely with misoprostol. Participants had no vaginal delivery. One trial showed the misoprostol group less likely to choose or recommend the treatment.Among multiparous women, mean score for IUC-insertion pain was lower for tramadol 50 mg versus naproxen 550 mg (MD -0.63, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.32) and for naproxen versus placebo (MD -1.94, 95% CI -2.35 to -1.53). The naproxen group was less likely than the placebo group to report the insertion experience as unpleasant and not want the medication in the future. An older trial showed repeated doses of naproxen 300 mg led to lower pain scores at one hour (MD -1.04, 95% CI -1.67 to -0.41) and two hours (MD -0.98, 95% CI -1.64 to -0.32) after insertion. Most women were nulliparous and also had lidocaine paracervical block.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Nearly all trials used modern IUC. Most effectiveness evidence was of moderate quality, having come from single trials. Lidocaine 2% gel, misoprostol, and most NSAIDs did not help reduce pain. Some lidocaine formulations, tramadol, and naproxen had some effect on reducing IUC insertion-related pain in specific groups. The ineffective interventions do not need further research.

Long-acting reversible contraceptives for teenagers: primary care recommendations

Long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods are underutilized in the adolescent population despite their superior efficacy over non-LARC methods. The purpose of this article is to discuss the barriers that lead to underutilization of these methods and present an evidence-based approach for the use of LARC methods among adolescents in the primary care setting.

Predicting painful or difficult intrauterine device insertion in nulligravid women

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relationship of preinsertion vaginal ultrasound assessment and menstrual and gynecologic history as predictors of difficult or painful intrauterine device insertion in nulligravid women.

METHODS

Nulligravid women seeking contraception were invited to participate in this nonrandomized study and given the choice between the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or a copper-releasing intrauterine device. All 165 enrolled women were interviewed and a pelvic examination, including vaginal ultrasonography, was performed before insertion. Insertion difficulties and pain intensity were recorded and assessed against uterine measurements and background characteristics.

RESULTS

Most insertions were assessed as easy (n=144 [89.4%]) and only two (1.2%) failed. Most women had uterine measurements smaller than the studied devices. Odds for difficulties at insertion decreased with every increasing millimeter in total uterine length (odds ratio [OR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-0.96, P=.006) and cervical length (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97, P=.02) and similarly with every decreasing degree of (straighter) flexion angle (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.99, P=.005). No absolute threshold measurements could be determined. Still, the majority of insertions in small and flexed uteri were uneventful. Severe insertion pain was common (n=94 [58.4%]). Severe dysmenorrhea was the only predictor of insertion pain (OR 8.16 95% CI 2.56-26.02, P<.001).

CONCLUSION

Ultrasonographic evaluation does not give additional information compared with clinical pelvic examination and sound measure. Although smaller uterine length measurements and steeper flexion angle more often predicted difficulties, the majority of insertions were uneventful in women with small measures. Dysmenorrhea was the only predictor of pain.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01685164.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.