Too many women 'grin and bear it' when getting an IUD. I helped write new pain management guidelines to change that.
Millions of American women have had an IUD (a tiny T-shaped contraceptive device) inserted into their uterus. Many of them likely walked into their doctor's office with a bit of anxiety, not knowing what exactly the procedure would feel like: Would it be just a pinch or would it be incredibly painful? (There is no shortage of viral horror stories.) Also, would your doctor take your pain seriously? Up until recently, there wasn't a standard of care for IUD pain management. Women are often told to pop over-the-counter pain relievers before coming in for the procedure, even though they don't always control the pain. Any pain relief beyond that has been up to the woman's doctor or hospital, and depended on what options they had available.
That's changing thanks to new guidelines on pain management for IUD placement issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists last month, which follows the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's updated guidelines in 2024. ACOG called out the 'urgent need' for doctors to acknowledge and treat patient pain and added that patients should 'have more autonomy over pain control options for their health care.'
Genevieve Hofmann is a nurse practitioner who coauthored the new ACOG guidelines. In this interview with Yahoo Life's Rachel Grumman Bender, Hofmann explains why IUDs can be painful for some, why any fears shouldn't scare people off from getting this highly effective contraceptive and how these pain management guidelines are an important step in the right direction.
IUDs are really one of the most effective birth control methods out there. We call them LARCs, or long-acting reversible contraceptives. Hormonal IUDs are over 99% effective at preventing pregnancy, and nonhormonal IUDs are equally effective. What's nice about hormonal IUDs is that we also use them to manage a lot of gynecologic conditions, such as heavy menstrual bleeding and painful periods.
However, patients are coming to us and saying, 'I do not want to have this horrible experience with getting an IUD. How can we manage this?' I've been in practice for a little over 20 years and [when I started out], we would tell people to take some ibuprofen beforehand and try to do some distraction techniques while we're putting it in. There's a lot of grin and bear it in gynecology and in women's health.
It's really challenging for us as providers to give people an accurate assessment of what they're going to experience with IUD placement. I've seen people who have had IUDs placed where it was like, That was not terrible, and then all the way to That was the worst pain that I've ever had in my entire life and I had a natural childbirth. There's a very large range of how people experience pain as well as anxiety.
So I think as a provider, the guidelines really put the onus on us to help people anticipate the pain and have that conversation about what they can expect. Sometimes they won't know until they're in the throes of it, and so it's about being prepared with some pain options in anticipation that it could be a really painful and uncomfortable procedure for them.
IUD insertion requires the placement of a speculum, which sort of holds open the vagina in a way that's not normal. So having a speculum in the vagina is not really comfortable.
Then there's the procedure itself. A lot of times, we have to manipulate the position of the uterus, and we do that sometimes by putting a clamp on the cervix. It's this sort of sharp instrument that takes a little 'bite' out of the cervix to hold it in place. So that tenaculum placement can be very painful.
IUDs are placed in the uterus, which is a muscular organ. To do that, you have to go through the cervix, which is the opening to the uterus. The cervix can be very tight, especially if someone has not had a vaginal birth. And so getting through that cervical opening can be really painful for some.
The uterine body itself has some nerves, so something going into the uterus is just crampy and painful — it's a very deep, visceral pain that is hard to explain to people if they've never had any kind of instrumentation in the uterus before. We also have a really large nerve called the vagus nerve that goes through the cervix; so people can also have this kind of vasovagal-type response when we manipulate the cervix, which makes people feel really terrible too.
It makes you feel like you're going to pass out and you get hot and you feel like you're going to throw up. And sometimes people feel like they have to poop and that is a really uncomfortable feeling as well. So there are many different aspects that cause pain.
But not everyone's going to feel that way. As a provider, I don't want to scare people out of getting this really effective birth control method or way to manage heavy menstrual bleeding. So [it's about] finding that balance between giving people the information they need so they can feel, OK, I'm going into this with my eyes open, but also not terrifying and scaring people away that they say, Yeah, I'm never ever gonna do that.
I always say it's like going to a restaurant. You're going to tell 25 people when you have a terrible restaurant experience. But if you have a great restaurant experience or a mediocre restaurant experience, you don't really tell anybody. So, I think there's a lot of people who do great with their IUD insertion and really manage it well, but they're not as vocal about it as somebody who's had a really awful experience.
What the evidence for the guidelines really demonstrated was that using some sort of topical lidocaine, which is a numbing agent, on the cervix was beneficial compared to a placebo or compared to other distracting techniques or ibuprofen and other pain medications.
Many of us have been offering better pain management options in the last several years compared to maybe what was happening 10 or 25 years ago. We know from the evidence that anxiety tends to worsen pain. I think providers will give anxiolytics [medications to treat anxiety], so telling patients to take a little bit of Xanax or some Ativan to help with the anxiety. And I do think people are using localized lidocaine, whether that's in a gel or a spray or putting in an injectable lidocaine through a paracervical (nerve) block. I think that is becoming much more typical. There's also IV sedation.
The other big thing that comes out of these guidelines is that we as providers owe it to our patients to have a discussion about some options that are available to them. So, it's really having the conversation, guiding patients to make the best decisions for themselves and then hopefully being able to find some interventions that you can do in your clinic safely and effectively to give people some options.
I hope that these guidelines get the conversation started in a way that we're meeting people where their needs are ... that they feel heard and can access things like IUDs that are really highly effective ... and that we believe patients when they say, 'This was really painful.' Or, 'I had a really terrible experience last time I did this.' [We should] trust them to know their bodies and say, 'OK, here are the things we're going to do to hopefully try to improve that experience this time.' So I hope that's what comes out of it.
Patients need to feel like they're in a space where they can advocate for themselves and be heard.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
President Trump, IVF Isn't the Way To Support Reproductive Health
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Trump administration is preparing to release an executive order aimed at expanding access to fertility treatments for American families. With the U.S. birth rate near record lows and infertility on the rise, federal support for couples seeking to start families is both timely and necessary. But how the administration structures that support will make all the difference. To be effective and ethically sound, any new fertility policy must uphold core principles: the dignity of human life, the strength of the family, and the responsible use of taxpayer dollars. In vitro fertilization (IVF), though widely practiced, is a flawed and grossly unethical approach to addressing infertility. As currently practiced, it carries high financial costs, low success rates, and involves the routine destruction and indefinite freezing of millions of human beings at the earliest stage of life. IVF costs an average of $20,000 per cycle, many couples requiring multiple cycles to achieve a successful live birth, leading to total expenses of $60,000 or more. The Trump administration should use this executive order to champion an ethical and effective alternative: restorative reproductive medicine (RRM), a scientifically grounded model that treats the root causes of infertility without destroying countless human lives. RRM is a medical approach that identifies and treats underlying causes of infertility in both men and women. Unlike IVF, which bypasses health issues by creating embryos in a lab and transferring them into the uterus, RRM works with the body's natural reproductive system to restore function and optimize fertility. Using diagnostic tools, hormone analysis, cycle tracking, and targeted medical or surgical interventions, RRM addresses a wide range of common fertility barriers—including ovulation and hormone disorders, endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome, thyroid dysfunction, and male-factor infertility. Treatments may include hormonal support, dietary and lifestyle adjustments, microbiome optimization, minor surgeries, or medication, always with the goal of achieving natural conception. Critically, RRM achieves comparable or better live birth rates than IVF, without the destruction of embryos and at a fraction of the cost. Because it restores long-term reproductive health, RRM not only supports conception but improves maternal and infant outcomes as well. PALM BEACH, FLORIDA - FEBRUARY 18: U.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks before signing an executive order on expanding access to IVF at his Mar-a-Lago resort on February 18, 2025 in Palm Beach, Florida. PALM BEACH, FLORIDA - FEBRUARY 18: U.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks before signing an executive order on expanding access to IVF at his Mar-a-Lago resort on February 18, 2025 in Palm Beach, a physician and an advocate, we urge the administration not to funnel federal funding into the IVF industry and instead to prioritize fertility treatments that restore reproductive health while respecting human dignity. We recommend the following three policies: 1. Prohibit federal funding of IVF and block insurance mandates for embryo-destructive procedures. The IVF industry depends on mass human embryo destruction. Each cycle creates on average nine embryos—human lives at their earliest stage. Yet fewer than 10 percent survive to birth. Most are destroyed, frozen, or lost in the process. By some estimates, more than one million human embryos remain frozen in the United States today. Federal funding should never subsidize a practice that discards human beings. Nor should the government mandate insurance coverage for procedures that violate core pro-life principles. If the Trump administration is serious about defending life from conception, it must apply that principle to all technologies—not just abortion, but also IVF. 2. Elevate restorative reproductive medicine as the gold standard. RRM is the future of ethical fertility care. It doesn't bypass the body's natural processes—it restores them. RRM identifies and treats the root causes of infertility in both men and women, resulting in higher rates of natural conceptions and healthier pregnancies. Compared to IVF, RRM is more effective and far more affordable. Studies show live birth rates of 40–66 percent for couples who complete RRM treatment—often higher than IVF outcomes, especially for those who've failed previous IVF cycles. And RRM does not share IVF's ethical baggage; it leaves no discarded embryos, no frozen lives, no commodification of children. 3. Launch a national fertility strategy focused on healing, not harm. The Trump administration should use this executive order to reorient federal fertility policy around life-affirming care. That means: Mandating insurance coverage for RRM in federally subsidized plans. Expanding access through Title X, HHS grants, and loan repayment programs for RRM-trained providers. Launching a national public awareness campaign highlighting RRM as the ethical first-line treatment. Investing in RRM research and data collection to improve outcomes and build provider networks. RRM is not just more ethical; it's more sustainable. It saves taxpayers money, reduces medical risks for mothers and babies, and strengthens families in the long term. Some physicians who once offered IVF as a standard treatment, like one of the authors here (Dr. Rubal), have grown deeply concerned about its ethical implications. While the procedure can result in a live birth, it also routinely leads to the destruction or indefinite freezing of human embryos, each a genetically distinct human being from the moment of fertilization. A consistent, science-informed pro-life ethic must account for this reality and reject policies that treat human life as disposable. Likewise, those committed to defending life from abortion must recognize that embryo destruction in fertility clinics raises the same moral concerns abortion does. The routine loss of embryos in IVF may be less visible, but it is no less grave. Ethical consistency demands that federal fertility policy protect human life at all stages, including in the earliest days of its existence. We understand the deep pain of infertility. We ache for the couples who are longing to hold a child. But the solution must never be the destruction of other children. There's a better path. The Trump administration has an opportunity to set a new standard for fertility care in America: one that lifts up families without sacrificing our most vulnerable. The upcoming executive order should reflect that vision. Children are not products to be manufactured. They are gifts to be welcomed. With the right policies, we can restore hope to families and do so while preserving respect for human life. Lila Rose is the founder and president of Live Action, a human rights organization dedicated to ending abortion and defending human dignity. Dr. Lauren Rubal, MD, is a board-certified Integrative OB/GYN and Reproductive Endocrinologist based in Orange County, CA. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Compass's Psychedelic Drug to Treat Depression Meets Goal in Trial
(Bloomberg) -- Compass Pathways Plc's shares plummeted after its psychedelic drug to treat a form of depression disappointed investors in a late-stage trial. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports The company said its psilocybin drug reduced depression symptoms by 3.6 points on a rating scale compared to a placebo, meeting its goal but falling short of Wall Street expectations. The study evaluated 258 adults for a change in their symptoms at six weeks, Compass said Monday. Investors had been expecting a five-point difference, RBC Capital Markets analyst Leonid Timashev said in a May note to clients. Compass Pathways' American depositary receipts fell as much as 37% in early trading on Monday. Still, Compass executives said the results would offer new momentum for psychedelic therapy. 'We've always said we were looking for a three-point or greater difference,' said Chief Medical Officer Guy Goodwin. Compass is hoping to give a boost to a nascent field that's seeking to legitimize mind-altering drugs for the treatment of mental health. Psilocybin is now the furthest along in development of any classic psychedelic since the Food and Drug Administration rejected Lykos Therapeutics Inc.'s MDMA for post-traumatic stress disorder last year, saying there wasn't sufficient data to prove it was safe and effective. 'Seeing this kind of meaningful improvement from a single dose is incredibly important — for patients, for caregivers, and for the entire field,' said Compass Chief Patient Officer Steve Levine. Compass's study looked at patients suffering from depression who hadn't been helped by at least two other treatments. About 21 million US adults have major depressive disorder, and about 30% of them have this form of depression, known as treatment-resistant depression. Chief Commercial Officer Lori Engelbert said it was notable that patients saw sustained improvements six weeks after just one dose of medication. 'I don't think psychiatry has seen anything like this,' she said, 'with one administration lasting this long.' In psychedelic trials, patients often know whether they've received the real drug, which can make placebo comparisons tricky. 'If we'd come out with a massive difference between active and placebo, then people would have said 'Oh, well, you can't trust placebo,'' Goodwin said, because experts worry trial participants might know whether they're on the drug or not. An independent board reviewed safety data for Compass's trial and found no clinically meaningful imbalance in suicidal thinking between the treatment and placebo, the company said. One concern with psilocybin is it could worsen suicidal thoughts of people with depression. This is the first of two late-stage trials for the drug, which is a synthesized version of an active ingredient in mushrooms. The second trial evaluated patients who got two doses of psilocybin. The company expects to release data from that trial next year. The company is also studying the drug in adults with PTSD. In recent years, magic mushrooms, MDMA and other psychedelics have been pitched as a panacea for several disorders including depression, PTSD, anxiety, nicotine addiction and anorexia. But Lykos's failure at the FDA has been viewed as a setback for the field. Recently, psychedelics supporters have found new hope from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is now the Health and Human Services secretary. Last year, Kennedy said that his mind 'is open to the idea of psychedelics for treatment,' adding that 'people ought to have the freedom and the liberty to experiment with these hallucinogens to overcome debilitating disorders.' If approved, Compass's drug would compete with Johnson & Johnson's Spravato, which is related to ketamine and generated over $1 billion in sales last year. Other biotechs developing psychedelics include GH Research PLC and Atai Life Sciences NV. (Updates with shares in fourth paragraph.) Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
UPI
3 hours ago
- UPI
American insurers to optimize prior authorizations
A group of major health care insurers, including Humana, whose CEO Bruce Broussard is pictured here, agred to streamline the prior authorizations process. File Photo by Oliver Contreras/UPI | License Photo June 23 (UPI) -- Major American insurers announced Monday that they have agreed to speed up and smooth out the processes involved with the reception and administration of health care by streamlining the prior authorization process. The AHIP health insurance industry trade association explained in a press release that dozens of large insurers such as Blue Cross Blue Shield, Humana, Cigna and UnitedHealthCare have voluntarily agreed to "streamline, simplify and reduce prior authorization," a move intended to better connect patients to necessary care while cutting down on the clerical loads of providers. "The health care system remains fragmented and burdened by outdated manual processes, resulting in frustration for patients and providers alike," said AHIP President and CEO Mike Tuffin. According to the companies, 257 million Americans should benefit from the changes, which will be implemented across markets, and include commercial coverage and some Medicare and Medicaid plans. "Health plans are making voluntary commitments to deliver a more seamless patient experience and enable providers to focus on patient care, while also helping to modernize the system," he added. Prior authorization requires that providers attain approval from a patient's insurance company before they can conduct services or treatments. The press release said that such authorizations can lead to the denial or delays of medically necessary care, while also causing "physician burnout." The plan is to create a "common standard" in regard to the submission of electronic prior authorization requests by the beginning of 2027, at which point at least 80% of authorization request approvals will be receive real time responses. Individual plans will also reduce claim types that are subject to prior authorization requests by 2026. "We are encouraged by this collective commitment to reform prior authorization practices," said Executive Vice President and CEO of the American Academy of Family Physicians Shawn Martin. "Physicians have long advocated for reforms that help ensure that patients receive timely, medically necessary care and reduce administrative burden, including the elimination of unnecessary prior authorizations." However, prior authorizations aren't going away, and insurers involved with the change are scheduled to meet with U.S. Heath and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz Monday.
