Skip to main content
. 2019 Apr;99(4):212–216. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2018.12.003

Table 1.

Distribution of study participants who received PPCuIUD at sampled health facilities in 2013–2014 according to sociodemographic characteristics, provider type, type of insertion and associated side effects experienced (n=844).

Characteristic Number (%)
State
 Uttarakhand 128 (15.2)
 Madhya Pradesh 138 (16.4)
 Chhattisgarh 131 (15.5)
 Jharkhand 137 (16.2)
 Bihar 188 (22.3)
 Uttar Pradesh 122 (14.5)
Age of the client
 <25 years 364 (43.1)
 ≥25 years 480 (56.9)
Education of the client
 Illiterate/just literate 192 (22.8)
 Up to 5th standard 117 (13.9)
 Up to 12th standard 396 (47.0)
 Graduate/postgraduate 139 (16.3)
Occupation of client
 Housewife 747 (88.5)
 Working 97 (11.5)
Number of living children
 0 12 (1.4)
 1 369 (43.7)
 2 304 (36.0)
 3 or more 159 (18.9)
Number of living male children
 0 257 (30.5)
 1 452 (53.6)
 2 113 (13.4)
 3 or more 22 (2.6)
Reason for accepting PPCuIUD
 Spacing 593 (70.3)
 Limiting 217 (25.7)
 Don't know 34 (04)
Type of insertion
 Postplacental insertion after cesarean delivery 141 (16.7)
 Postplacental insertion after vaginal delivery 532 (63.0)
 Early postpartum 171 (20.3)
Type of service provider who inserted PPCuIUDa
 Doctor 359 (42.7)
 Nurse 481 (57.3)
Socioeconomic status
 Lower class 108 (12.8)
 Lower middle class 298 (35.3)
 Middle class 222 (26.3)
 Upper/upper middle class 216 (25.6)
Experienced pain in abdomen/bleeding/dischargea
 Yes 314 (37.2)
 No 463 (54.9)
 Not available (for those who reported expulsion) 63 (7.5)
a

Data missing for four women.