Table 3 Summary of satisfaction ratings
References | Study design | LARC | Time period (months) | Patient satisfaction with contraception, % | Satisfaction with bleeding, % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LNG-IUD | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Neri et al. [26] | Prospective single-arm | LNG-IUD, 6 µg/day (Jaydess) | 12 | 100% (excellent/optimal/good) | – |
Carvalho et al. [28] | Prospective, observational, single-arm | LNG-IUD, 20 µg/day (Mirena) |  > 14 | 93% highly satisfied | – |
Whitaker et al. [30] | RCT | LNG-IUD, immediate vs late insertion following caesarean delivery | 12 | Immediate vs delayed 91.7% vs 100% (with available data) | – |
Stoegerer-Hecher et al. [32] | Cross-sectional | LNG-IUD (Mirena) | NR | 90.6% (very/quite/moderately satisfied) | 74.1% very satisfied amenorrhoeic, 91.0% |
Heikinheimo et al. [16] | Prospective, single-arm | LNG-IUD | 12 | 98.4% (definite/somewhat agreeing) | 91.7% (definite/somewhat agreeing) |
Nelson et al. [18]a | RCT | LNG-IUD 13.5Â mg vs 19.5Â mg | 36 | 95% vs 96% (very/somewhat satisfied) | 77% vs 76% (very/somewhat satisfied) |
Gemzell-Danielsson et al. [17]a | RCT (same study as Nelson et al. 2013) | LNG-IUD 13.5 mg vs 19.5 mg | 36 |  > 90% (very/somewhat satisfied) |  > 70% (very/somewhat satisfied) |
Apter et al. [54] | RCT | LNG-IUD (Jaydess, 13.5Â mg) vs ENG | 12 | 86.5% vs 75.9% (very/somewhat satisfied) | 60.9% vs 33.6% (very/somewhat satisfied) |
Short et al. [56] | Prospective | LNG-IUD (Mirena) vs ENG | 24 | 84% vs 70% (agree) | 90% vs 77% (agree) |
Short et al. [58] | Prospective, comparative, observational | LNG-IUD (Mirena) vs ENG | 12 | 80% vs 66% (definite/somewhat agree) | – |
Cu-IUD | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Yaron et al. [33] | Retrospective, observational | Cu-IUD, Ballerine MIDI | – | 65.7% satisfied/very satisfied | – |
Scavuzzi et al. [37] | Cross-sectional, nulligravida vs parous women | Cu-IUD, CuT380A | – | Nulligravida/parous 93.8% vs 94.5% (fully/partially satisfied) | – |
Wiebe and Trussell [38] | Prospective case series | Cu-IUD, SCu380A | 12 | 71% satisfied | – |
LNG-IUD vs Cu-IUD | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Flamant et al. [48] | Prospective, comparative, observational | LNG-IUDvs Cu-IUD | 6 | 82.1% vs 86.7% (very/somewhat satisfied) (p = 0.81) | – |
McNicholas et al. [49] | Retrospective, comparative, observational | LNG-IUD vs Cu-IUD | 9 | 78.7% vs 85.0% (satisfied) (p = 0.99) | – |
Piva et al. [51] | Prospective, comparative, observational | LNG-IUD vs Cu-IUD vs implant | 12 | 87.2% vs 100% vs 63.4%, ns (ITT analysis) | – |
Diedrich et al. [21] | Prospective, comparative, cohort study, Contraceptive CHOICE Project | LNG-IUD vs Cu-IUD (CuT380A) vs ENG | 6 | 94% vs 93% vs 90% (very/somewhat satisfied) | – |
Modesto et al. [55] | RCT of routine vs intensive counselling | LNG-IUD vs CuT380A IUD vs ENG | 12 | 91.0% vs 85.7% vs 90.0% (p = 0.612) | – |
Peipert et al. [24] | Prospective, comparative, cohort study, Contraceptive CHOICE Project | LNG-IUD vs Cu-IUD vs Implant (vs non-LARC) | 12 | 85.7% vs 80.1% vs 78.7% (very/somewhat satisfied) | – |