Assessing differences in contraceptive provision through telemedicine among reproductive health providers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Providers faced challenges in maintaining patient access to contraceptive services and public health safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to increased barriers to care, providers increasingly used telemedicine for contraceptive care, curbside services, mail-order pharmacies, and on-line or home delivery of contraceptive methods, including self-administration of subcutaneous depo medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-SQ). To better understand how reproductive health providers adapted service provision during the pandemic, this study assessed clinical practice changes and strategies providers adopted throughout the United States to maintain contraceptive care, particularly when clinics closed on-site, and the challenges that remained in offering contraceptive services, especially to marginalized patient populations. METHODS: We surveyed U.S. providers and clinic staff (n = 907) in April 2020-January 2021, collecting data on contraceptive service delivery challenges and adaptations, including telemedicine. We assessed clinical practice changes with multivariate regression analyses using generalized linear models with a Poisson distribution and cluster robust standard errors, adjusting for clinic patient volume, practice setting, region, Title X funding, and time of survey. RESULTS: While 80% of providers reported their clinic remained open, 20% were closed on-site. Providers said the pandemic made it more difficult to offer the full range of contraceptive methods (65%), contraceptive counseling (61%) or to meet the needs of patients in marginalized communities (50%). While only 11% of providers offered telemedicine pre-pandemic, most offered telemedicine visits (79%) during the pandemic. Some used mail-order pharmacies (35%), curbside contraceptive services (22%), and DMPA-SQ for self-administration (10%). Clinics that closed on-site were more likely to use mail-order pharmacies (aRR 1.83, 95% CI [1.37-2.44]) and prescribe self-administered DMPA-SQ (aRR 3.85, 95% CI [2.40-6.18]). Clinics closed on-site were just as likely to use telemedicine as those that remained open. Among clinics using telemedicine, those closed on-site continued facing challenges in contraceptive service provision. CONCLUSIONS: Clinics closing on-site were just as likely to offer telemedicine, but faced greater challenges in offering contraceptive counseling and the full range of contraceptive methods, and meeting the needs of marginalized communities. Maintaining in-person care for contraceptive services, in spite of staffing shortages and financial difficulties, is an important objective during and beyond the pandemic.

Mental health among outpatient reproductive health care providers during the US COVID-19 epidemic.

INTRODUCTION: Both inpatient and outpatient providers may be at increased risk of stress, anxiety and depression from their roles as health providers during the COVID-19 epidemic. This study explores how the US COVID-19 epidemic has increased feelings of stress, anxiety and depression among outpatient reproductive health providers. METHODS: We conducted a survey with open-ended responses among outpatient reproductive health providers across the U.S. engaged in contraceptive care to collect data on their experiences with stress, anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 epidemic. The study population included physicians, nurses, social workers, and other health professions [n = 288]. Data were collected from April 21st-June 24th 2020. We used content analysis of free text responses among providers reporting increased stress, anxiety or depression. RESULTS: Two-thirds (184) of providers reported increased stress and one-third (96) reported increased anxiety or depression related to care provision during the COVID-19 epidemic. The major sources of stress, anxiety and depression were due to patient care, worry about becoming infected or infecting family members, work- and home-related concerns, experiencing provider burnout, and fear of the unknown. Concerns about quality of patient care, providers' changing responsibilities, lack of personal protective equipment, and difficulty coping with co-worker illness and absence all contributed to provider stress and anxiety. Worries about unemployment and childcare responsibilities were also highlighted. Providers attributed their stress, anxiety or depression to feeling overwhelmed, being unable to focus, lacking sleep, and worrying about the unknown. CONCLUSIONS: US outpatient providers are experiencing significant stress, anxiety, and depression during the US COVID-19 epidemic. Policy and programmatic responses are urgently needed to address the widespread adverse mental health consequences of this epidemic on outpatient providers, including reproductive health providers, across the US. Both inpatient and outpatient providers may be at increased risk of stress, anxiety and depression from their roles as health providers during the COVID-19 epidemic. This study explores how the US COVID-19 epidemic has increased feelings of stress, anxiety and depression among outpatient reproductive health providers across the US. We conducted a survey from April 21st to June 24th, 2020 among outpatient reproductive health providers, including physicians, nurses, social workers and other health professions. We asked open-ended questions to understand why providers reported increased stress, anxiety and/or depression. Two-thirds (184) of providers reported increased stress and one-third (96) reported increased anxiety or depression from care provision during the COVID-19 epidemic. Major sources of stress, anxiety and depression were due to patient care, worry about becoming infected or infecting family members, work- and home-related concerns, experiencing provider burnout, and fear of the unknown. Concerns about quality of patient care, providers' changing responsibilities, lack of personal protective equipment, and difficulty coping with co-worker illness and absence all contributed to provider stress and anxiety. Worries about unemployment and childcare responsibilities were also highlighted. Providers attributed their stress, anxiety or depression to feeling overwhelmed, being unable to focus, lacking sleep, and worrying about the unknown. This study highlights that US outpatient reproductive health providers are experiencing significant stress, anxiety, and depression during the US COVID-19 epidemic. Policy and programmatic responses are urgently needed to address the widespread adverse mental health consequences of this epidemic on outpatient providers, including reproductive health providers, across the US.

Implementation science: Scaling a training intervention to include IUDs and implants in contraceptive services in primary care.

Building capacity for contraceptive services in primary care settings, including for intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants, can help to broaden contraceptive access across the US. Following a randomized trial in family planning clinics, we brought a provider training intervention to other clinical settings including primary care in all regions. This implementation science study evaluates a national scale-up of a contraceptive training intervention to varied practice settings from 2013 to 2019 among 3216 clinic staff serving an estimated 1.6 million annual contraceptive patients. We measured providers' knowledge and clinical practice changes regarding IUDs and implants using survey data. We estimated the overall intervention effect, and its relative effectiveness in primary care settings, with generalized estimating equations for clustered data. Patient-centered counseling improved, along with comfort with method provision and removal. Provider knowledge increased (p < 0.001), as did evidence-based counseling for IUDs (aOR 3.3 95% CI 2.8-3.9) and implants (aOR 3.5, 95% CI 3.0-4.1), and clinician competency in copper and levonorgestrel IUDs (aORs 1.8-2.6 95% CIs 1.5-3.2) and implants (aOR 2.4 95% CI 2.0-2.9). While proficiency was lower initially in primary care, gains were significant and at times greater than in Planned Parenthood health clinics. This intervention was effectively scaled, including in primary care settings with limited prior experience with these methods. Recent changes to Title X family planning funding rules exclude several large family planning providers, shifting greater responsibility to primary care and other settings. Scaling effective contraceptive interventions is one way to ensure capacity to offer patients full contraceptive services.

Training contraceptive providers to offer intrauterine devices and implants in contraceptive care: a cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: US unintended pregnancy rates remain high, and contraceptive providers are not universally trained to offer intrauterine devices and implants to women who wish to use these methods. OBJECTIVE: We sought to measure the impact of a provider training intervention on integration of intrauterine devices and implants into contraceptive care. STUDY DESIGN: We measured the impact of a continuing medical education-accredited provider training intervention on provider attitudes, knowledge, and practices in a cluster randomized trial in 40 US health centers from 2011 through 2013. Twenty clinics were randomly assigned to the intervention arm; 20 offered routine care. Clinic staff participated in baseline and 1-year surveys assessing intrauterine device and implant knowledge, attitudes, and practices. We used a difference-in-differences approach to compare changes that occurred in the intervention sites to changes in the control sites 1 year later. Prespecified outcome measures included: knowledge of patient eligibility for intrauterine devices and implants; attitudes about method safety; and counseling practices. We used multivariable regression with generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by clinic to examine intervention effects on provider outcomes 1 year later. RESULTS: Overall, we surveyed 576 clinic staff (314 intervention, 262 control) at baseline and/or 1-year follow-up. The change in proportion of providers who believed that the intrauterine device was safe was greater in intervention (60% at baseline to 76% at follow-up) than control sites (66% at both times) (adjusted odds ratio, 2.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-5.4). Likewise, for the implant, the proportion increased from 57-77% in intervention, compared to 61-65% in control sites (adjusted odds ratio, 2.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.44-4.59). The proportion of providers who believed they were experienced to counsel on intrauterine devices also increased in intervention (53-67%) and remained the same in control sites (60%) (adjusted odds ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.44), and for the implant increased more in intervention (41-62%) compared to control sites (48-50%) (adjusted odds ratio, 2.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-4.12). Knowledge scores of patient eligibility for intrauterine devices increased at intervention sites (from 0.77-0.86) 6% more over time compared to control sites (from 0.78-0.80) (adjusted coefficient, 0.058; 95% confidence interval, 0.003-0.113). Knowledge scores of eligibility for intrauterine device and implant use with common medical conditions increased 15% more in intervention (0.65-0.79) compared to control sites (0.67-0.66) (adjusted coefficient, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.21). Routine discussion of intrauterine devices and implants by providers in intervention sites increased significantly, 71-87%, compared to in control sites, 76-82% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-3.80). CONCLUSION: Professional guidelines encourage intrauterine device and implant competency for all contraceptive care providers. Integrating these methods into routine care is important for access. This replicable training intervention translating evidence into care had a sustained impact on provider attitudes, knowledge, and counseling practices, demonstrating significant changes in clinical care a full year after the training intervention.

Contraception after medication abortion in the United States: results from a cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how contraceptive choices and access differ for women having medication abortions compared to aspiration procedures can help to identify priorities for improved patient-centered postabortion contraceptive care. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the differences in contraceptive counseling, method choices, and use between medication and aspiration abortion patients. STUDY DESIGN: This subanalysis examines data from 643 abortion patients from 17 reproductive health centers in a cluster, randomized trial across the United States. We recruited participants aged 18-25 years who did not desire pregnancy and followed them for 1 year. We measured the effect of a full-staff contraceptive training and abortion type on contraceptive counseling, choice, and use with multivariable regression models, using generalized estimating equations for clustering. We used survival analysis with shared frailty to model actual intrauterine device and subdermal implant initiation over 1 year. RESULTS: Overall, 26% of participants (n = 166) had a medication abortion and 74% (n = 477) had an aspiration abortion at the enrollment visit. Women obtaining medication abortions were as likely as those having aspiration abortions to receive counseling on intrauterine devices or the implant (55%) and on a short-acting hormonal method (79%). The proportions of women choosing to use these methods (29% intrauterine device or implant, 58% short-acting hormonal) were also similar by abortion type. The proportions of women who actually used short-acting hormonal methods (71% medication vs 57% aspiration) and condoms or no method (20% vs 22%) within 3 months were not significantly different by abortion type. However, intrauterine device initiation over a year was significantly lower after the medication than the aspiration abortion (11 per 100 person-years vs 20 per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.89). Implant initiation rates were low and similar by abortion type (5 per 100 person-years vs 4 per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio, 2.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-6.59). In contrast to women choosing short-acting methods, relatively few of those choosing a long-acting method at enrollment, 34% of medication abortion patients and 53% of aspiration abortion patients, had one placed within 3 months. Neither differences in health insurance nor pelvic examination preferences by abortion type accounted for lower intrauterine device use among medication abortion patients. CONCLUSION: Despite similar contraceptive choices, fewer patients receiving medication abortion than aspiration abortion initiated intrauterine devices over 1 year of follow-up. Interventions to help patients receiving medication abortion to successfully return for intrauterine device placement are warranted. New protocols for same-day implant placement may also help patients receiving medication abortion and desiring a long-acting method to receive one.

Reductions in pregnancy rates in the USA with long-acting reversible contraception: a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Unintended pregnancy remains a serious public health challenge in the USA. We assessed the effects of an intervention to increase patients' access to long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) on pregnancy rates. METHODS: We did a cluster randomised trial in 40 reproductive health clinics across the USA in 2011-13. 20 clinics were randomly assigned to receive evidence-based training on providing counselling and insertion of intrauterine devices (IUDs) or progestin implants and 20 to provide standard care. Usual costs for contraception were maintained at all sites. We recruited women aged 18-25 years attending family planning or abortion care visits and not desiring pregnancy in the next 12 months. The primary outcome was selection of an IUD or implant at the clinic visit and secondary outcome was pregnancy within 12 months. We used generalised estimating equations for clustered data to measure the intervention effect on contraceptive selection, and used survival analysis to assess pregnancy rates. FINDINGS: Of 1500 women enrolled, more at intervention than control sites reported receiving counselling on IUDs or implants (565 [71%] of 797 vs 271 [39%] of 693, odds ratio 3·8, 95% CI 2·8-5·2) and more selected LARCs during the clinic visit (224 [28%] vs 117 [17%], 1·9, 1·3-2·8). The pregnancy rate was lower in intervention group than in the control group after family planning visits (7·9 vs 15·4 per 100 person-years), but not after abortion visits (26·5 vs 22·3 per 100 person-years). We found a significant intervention effect on pregnancy rates in women attending family planning visits (hazard ratio 0·54, 95% CI 0·34-0·85). INTERPRETATION: The pregnancy rate can be reduced by provision of counselling on long-term reversible contraception and access to devices during family planning counselling visits. FUNDING: William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

Funding policies and postabortion long-acting reversible contraception: results from a cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Almost one-half of women having an abortion in the United States have had a previous procedure, which highlights a failure to provide adequate preventive care. Provision of intrauterine devices and implants, which have high upfront costs, can be uniquely challenging in the abortion care setting. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a study of a clinic-wide training intervention on long-acting reversible contraception and examined the effect of the intervention, insurance coverage, and funding policies on the use of long-acting contraceptives after an abortion. STUDY DESIGN: This subanalysis of a cluster, randomized trial examines data from the 648 patients who had undergone an abortion who were recruited from 17 reproductive health centers across the United States. The trial followed participants 18-25 years old who did not desire pregnancy for a year. We measured the effect of the intervention, health insurance, and funding policies on contraceptive outcomes, which included intrauterine device and implant counseling and selection at the abortion visit, with the use of logistic regression with generalized estimating equations for clustering. We used survival analysis to model the actual initiation of these methods over 1 year. RESULTS: Women who obtained abortion care at intervention sites were more likely to report intrauterine device and implant counseling (70% vs 41%; adjusted odds ratio, 3.83; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-6.19) and the selection of these methods (36% vs 21%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-3.21). However, the actual initiation of methods was similar between study arms (22/100 woman-years each; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.51). Health insurance and funding policies were important for the initiation of intrauterine devices and implants. Compared with uninsured women, those women with public health insurance had a far higher initiation rate (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-3.62). Women at sites that provide state Medicaid enrollees abortion coverage also had a higher initiation rate (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.88), as did those at sites with state mandates for private health insurance to cover contraception (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-3.07). Few of the women with private insurance used it to pay for the abortion (28%), but those who did initiated long-acting contraceptive methods at almost twice the rate as women who paid for it themselves or with donated funds (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-3.43). CONCLUSIONS: The clinic-wide training increased long-acting reversible contraceptive counseling and selection but did not change initiation for abortion patients. Long-acting method use after abortion was associated strongly with funding. Restrictions on the coverage of abortion and contraceptives in abortion settings prevent the initiation of desired long-acting methods.

Public Funding for Contraception, Provider Training, and Use of Highly Effective Contraceptives: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: We determined whether public funding for contraception was associated with long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) use when providers received training on these methods. METHODS: We evaluated the impact of a clinic training intervention and public funding on LARC use in a cluster randomized trial at 40 randomly assigned clinics across the United States (2011-2013). Twenty intervention clinics received a 4-hour training. Women aged 18 to 25 were enrolled and followed for 1 year (n = 1500: 802 intervention, 698 control). We estimated the effects of the intervention and funding sources on LARC initiation with Cox proportional hazards models with shared frailty. RESULTS: Women at intervention sites had higher LARC initiation than those at control (22 vs 18 per 100 person-years; adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] = 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04, 1.98). Participants receiving care at clinics with Medicaid family planning expansion programs had almost twice the initiation rate as those at clinics without (25 vs 13 per 100 person-years; AHR = 2.26; 95% CI = 1.59, 3.19). LARC initiation also increased among participants with public (AHR = 1.56; 95% CI = 1.09, 2.22) but not private health insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Public funding and provider training substantially improve LARC access.

Provision of DMPA-SC for self-administration in different practice settings during the COVID-19 pandemic: Data from providers across the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate-subcutaneous (DMPA-SC) can be prescribed through telemedicine and self-administered, but data about availability, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, are limited. This study assessed changes in the availability of DMPA-SC for self-administration during the pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: This study used survey data from a convenience sample of US providers engaged in contraceptive care and participating in a Continuing Medical Education-accredited contraceptive training (April 2020-April 2022; n = 849). Providers were recruited from across 503 clinics, including primary care and family planning clinics, public health departments, college and school-based health centers, independent abortion care clinics, and outpatient clinics in hospital settings. Measures included the availability of DMPA-SC for self-administration before and during the pandemic and the use of telemedicine. We used Poisson regression models and cluster-robust errors by clinic, adjusting for region, time of survey, and clinic size, to assess clinic availability of DMPA-SC for self-administration by practice setting. RESULTS: Compared to the prepandemic period (4%), the availability of DMPA-SC for self-administration increased significantly during the pandemic (14%) (adjusted prevalence ratios [aPR] 3.43, 95% CI [2.43-4.85]). During the pandemic, independent abortion clinics were more likely to offer DMPA-SC for self-administration compared to primary care clinics (aPR 2.44, 95% CI [1.10-5.41]). Clinics receiving Title X funds were also more likely to provide DMPA-SC for self-administration during the pandemic compared to other clinics (aPR 2.32, 95% CI [1.57-3.43]), and more likely to offer DMPA-SC for self-administration through telemedicine (aPR 2.35, 95% CI [1.52-3.63]). Compared to the early pandemic period (April-September 2022), telemedicine access to DMPA-SC for self-administration was highest during the later pandemic time period (October 2021-April 2022) (aPR 2.10, 95% CI [1.06-4.17]). CONCLUSIONS: The availability of DMPA-SC for self-administration significantly increased during the pandemic with differences by practice setting and Title X funding. However, overall method availability remains persistently low. IMPLICATIONS: Despite increased availability of DMPA-SC for self-administration among US contraceptive providers during the COVID-19 pandemic, there remains a need to train providers, educate patients, and remove barriers to ensure broader availability of this method across different practice settings.

Telehealth for Contraceptive Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Provider Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth use rapidly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, including for contraceptive care (e.g., counseling and method provision). This study explored providers' experiences with contraceptive care via telehealth. METHODS: We conducted a survey with open-ended responses among contraceptive providers across the United States. The study population included physicians, nurse practitioners, health educators, and other health professionals (n = 546). Data were collected from April 10, 2020, to January 29, 2021. We conducted qualitative content analysis of the open-ended responses. RESULTS: Providers highlighted the benefits of telehealth, including continuing access to contraceptive services and accommodating patients who faced challenges attending in-person contraceptive visits. Providers at school-based health centers reported telehealth allowed them to reach young people while schools were closed. However, many providers noted a lack of patient awareness about the availability of telehealth services and disparities in access to technology. Providers felt there was less personal connection in virtual contraceptive counseling, noted challenges with confidentiality, and expressed concern about the inability to provide the full range of contraceptive methods through telehealth alone. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic significantly impacted contraceptive health care delivery. Telehealth has sustained access to contraception in important ways, but has been accompanied by various challenges, including technological access and confidentiality. As hybrid models of care evolve, it is important to assess how telehealth can play a role in providing contraceptive care while addressing its barriers.

Intrauterine Devices and Sexually Transmitted Infection among Older Adolescents and Young Adults in a Cluster Randomized Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Provider misconceptions regarding intrauterine device (IUD) safety for adolescents and young women can unnecessarily limit contraceptive options offered; we sought to evaluate rates of Neisseria gonorrhoeae or Chlamydia trachomatis (GC/CT) diagnoses among young women who adopted IUDs. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized provider educational trial. SETTING: Forty US-based reproductive health centers. PARTICIPANTS: We followed 1350 participants for 12 months aged 18-25 years who sought contraceptive care. INTERVENTIONS: The parent study assessed the effect of provider training on evidence-based contraceptive counseling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed incidence of GC/CT diagnoses according to IUD use and sexually transmitted infection risk factors using Cox regression modeling and generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Two hundred four participants had GC/CT history at baseline; 103 received a new GC/CT diagnosis over the 12-month follow-up period. IUDs were initiated by 194 participants. Incidence of GC/CT diagnosis was 10.0 per 100 person-years during IUD use vs 8.0 otherwise. In adjusted models, IUD use (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-2.40), adolescent age (aHR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.72-2.27), history of GC/CT (aHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.75-2.00), and intervention status (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.74-1.71) were not associated with GC/CT diagnosis; however, new GC/CT diagnosis rates were significantly higher among individuals who reported multiple partners at baseline (aHR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.34-2.98). CONCLUSION: In this young study population with GC/CT history, this use of IUDs was safe and did not lead to increased GC/CT diagnoses. However, results highlighted the importance of dual sexually transmitted infection and pregnancy protection for participants with multiple partners.

Improving Capacity at School-based Health Centers to Offer Adolescents Counseling and Access to Comprehensive Contraceptive Services.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Many pediatric providers serving adolescents are not trained to offer comprehensive contraceptive services, including intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants, despite high safety and satisfaction among adolescents. This study assessed an initiative to train providers at school-based health centers (SBHCs) to offer students the full range of contraceptive methods. DESIGN: Surveys were administered at baseline pre-training and at follow-up 3 months post-training. Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equations for clustered data to examine clinical practice changes. SETTING: Eleven contraceptive trainings at SBHCs across the United States from 2016-2019. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 260 providers from 158 SBHCs serving 135,800 students. INTERVENTIONS: On-site training to strengthen patient-centered counseling and to equip practitioners to integrate IUDs and implants into contraceptive services. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcomes included counseling experience on IUDs and implants, knowledge of patient eligibility, and clinician method skills. RESULTS: At follow-up, providers were significantly more likely to report having enough experience to counsel on IUDs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.62-6.36]) and implants (aOR, 3.06; 95% CI, 2.05-4.57). Provider knowledge about patient eligibility for IUDs, including for adolescents, increased (P < .001). Providers were more likely to offer same-visit IUD (aOR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.41-3.12) and implant services (aOR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.44-1.91). Clinicians' skills with contraceptive devices improved, including for a newly available low-cost IUD (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.45-3.36). CONCLUSIONS: Offering evidence-based training is a promising approach to increase counseling and access to comprehensive contraceptive services at SBHCs.

Impact of immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine contraception on repeat abortion.

BACKGROUND: Of the 1.3 million abortions performed annually in the United States, approximately half are repeat procedures. Immediate postabortal intrauterine device (IUD) insertion is a safe, effective, practical and underutilized intervention that we hypothesize will significantly decrease repeat unintended pregnancy and abortion. STUDY DESIGN: All women receiving immediate postabortal IUD insertion in eight clinics of a Northern California Planned Parenthood agency during a 3-year period comprise the IUD cohort. We selected a cohort of controls receiving abortions but choosing other, non-IUD contraception on the day of the abortion visit in a 2:1 ratio matched by date of abortion. We obtained follow-up data on repeat abortions within the agency for both cohorts through 14 months after the 3-year period. We evaluated differences in repeat abortion between cohorts. All analyses were intent-to-treat. RESULTS: Women who received an immediate postabortal IUD had a lower rate of repeat abortions than controls (p<.001). Women who received a postabortal IUD had 34.6 abortions per 1000 woman-years of follow-up compared to 91.3 for the control group. The hazard ratio for repeat abortion was 0.38 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.27-0.53] for women receiving a postabortal IUD compared to controls. When adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, marital status, and family size, the hazard ratio was 0.37 (95% CI, 0.26-0.52). CONCLUSION: Immediate postabortal intrauterine contraception has the potential to significantly reduce repeat abortion.

Increasing intrauterine contraception use by reducing barriers to post-abortal and interval insertion.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesize that barriers to IUD insertion are central to low utilization in the USA. This study evaluates methods to minimize barriers, including post-abortal insertion, staff training and simplified screening. STUDY DESIGN: We obtained data on IUD utilization during three study periods: a control period (Period 1), a period after initiating post-abortal insertion and staff training (Period 2), and a period with these interventions plus simplified screening for interval insertions (Period 3). We evaluated IUD utilization, associated complications and utilization at a similar local agency in which the interventions were not implemented. RESULTS: We inserted 2172 IUDs during the study, including 1493 interval and 679 post-abortal insertions. In the control period, there were 28 monthly IUD insertions on average, compared to 71 (a 151% increase) and 122 (a 334% increase) in Periods 2 and 3, respectively. IUD utilization at the nearby agency remained relatively constant. Complications remained low. CONCLUSIONS: IUD utilization can be substantially increased through relatively simple, low-cost interventions, with significant potential to reduce unintended pregnancy.

Training in aspiration abortion care: An observational cohort study of achieving procedural competence.

BACKGROUND: Studies in multiple countries have found that the provision of aspiration abortion care by trained nurses, midwives, and other front-line health care workers is safe and acceptable to women. In the United States, most state abortion laws restrict the provision of abortion to physicians; nurse practitioners, nurse-midwives, and physician assistants, can legally perform medication abortion in only twelve states and aspiration abortion in five. Expansion of abortion care by these providers, consistent with their scopes of practice, could help alleviate the increasing difficulty of accessing abortion care in many states. OBJECTIVES: This study used a competency-based training model to teach advanced practice clinicians to perform vacuum aspiration for the abortion care. Previous research reporting on the training of providers other than physicians primarily focused on numbers of procedures performed, without assessment of skill competency or clinician confidence. DESIGN: In this prospective, observational cohort study, advanced practice clinician trainees were recruited from 23 clinical sites across six partner organizations. Trainees participated in a standardized, competency-based didactic and clinical training program in uterine aspiration for first-trimester abortion. SETTINGS: Trainee clinicians needed to be employed by one of the six partner organizations and have an intention to remain in clinical practice following training. PARTICIPANTS: California-licensed advanced practice clinicians were eligible to participate in the training if they had at least 12 months of clinical experience, including at least three months of medication abortion provision, and certification in Basic Life Support. METHODS: A standardized, competency-based training program consisting of both didactic and clinical training in uterine aspiration for first-trimester abortion was completed by 46 advanced practice clinician participants. Outcomes related to procedural safety and to the learning process were measured between August 2007 and December 2013, and compared to those of resident physician trainees. RESULTS: Essentially identical odds of complications occurring from advanced practice clinician-performed procedures were not significantly different than the odds of complications occurring from resident-performed procedures (OR: 0.99; CI: 0.46-2.02; p > 0.05) after controlling for patient sociodemographic and medical history. The number of training days to foundational competence ranged from six to 10, and the number of procedures to competence for those who completed training ranged from 40 to 56 (median = 42.5). CONCLUSIONS: A standardized, competency-based trainingprogram can prepare advanced practice clinicians to safely provide first-trimester aspiration abortions. Access to safe abortion care can be enhanced by increasing the number of providers from cadres of clinicians other than physicians.

The intrauterine device as emergency contraception: how much do young women know?

BACKGROUND: Unprotected intercourse is common, especially among teens and young women. Access to intrauterine device (IUD) as emergency contraception (EC) can help interested patients more effectively prevent unintended pregnancy and can also offer ongoing contraception. This study evaluated young women's awareness of IUD as EC and interest in case of need. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from young women aged 18-25 years, not desiring pregnancy within 12 months, and receiving contraceptive counseling within a cluster-randomized trial in 40 US Planned Parenthood health centers in 2011-2013 (n=1500). Heath centers were randomized to receive enhanced training on contraceptive counseling and IUD placement, or to provide standard care. The intervention did not focus specifically on IUD as EC. We assessed awareness of IUD as EC, desire to learn more about EC and most trusted source of information of EC among women in both intervention and control groups completing baseline and 3- or 6-month follow-up questionnaires (n=1138). RESULTS: At follow-up, very few young women overall (7.5%) visiting health centers had heard of IUD as EC. However, if they needed EC, most (68%) reported that they would want to learn about IUDs in addition to EC pills, especially those who would be very unhappy to become pregnant (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.6, p<.05). Most (91%) reported a doctor or nurse as their most trusted source of EC information, over Internet (6%) or friends (2%), highlighting providers' essential role. CONCLUSION: Most young women at risk of unintended pregnancy are not aware of IUD as EC and look to their providers for trusted information. Contraceptive education should explicitly address IUD as EC. IMPLICATIONS: Few young women know that the IUD can be used for EC or about its effectiveness. However, if they needed EC, most reported that they would want to learn about IUDs in addition to EC pills, especially those very unhappy to become pregnant. Contraceptive education should explicitly address IUD as EC.

Abortion training in three family medicine programs: resident and patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Three family medicine residency programs in California integrated abortion training into routine gynecology rotations in academic years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. METHODS: Forty-six (88%) of 52 eligible residents participated in the abortion training sessions. Of these 46 residents, 39 (85%) chose to perform abortion procedures, and seven residents elected to provide other aspects of patient care only. RESULTS: Resident evaluations of the training program were overwhelmingly positive. Moreover, two thirds of the 43 post-training survey respondents reported that the training program increased their interest in providing abortion services, and no resident reported decreased interest. The resident complication rate was 1.0%. In post-procedure surveys completed by 155 patients at two training sites, patients reported a high level of satisfaction with the care they received from the training team. CONCLUSIONS: These program evaluation results suggest that abortion training can safely be integrated into family medicine residency programs, with a positive reception by both residents and patients.

Postgraduate Experiences With an Advanced Reproductive Health and Abortion Training and Leadership Program.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Family physicians are critical to reproductive health service provision including miscarriage management and abortion care, but many graduates report barriers in integrating these services into practice. We designed and implemented CREATE (Continuing Reproductive Education for Advanced Training Efficacy), an elective advanced training and leadership program for senior residents aimed to help new graduates integrate miscarriage and abortion care into practice. METHODS: We surveyed all 53 program graduates at graduation, and 47 completed a follow-up survey in March 2016. We describe program graduates' current reproductive health practices and differences by respondent characteristics. We report facilitators (or enabling factors) and barriers that graduates encountered in attempting to integrate reproductive health care into practice, as well as the perceived impact of the CREATE program. RESULTS: Forty-two percent of CREATE graduates were providing miscarriage management and 35% were providing abortion care at the time of the follow-up survey. Factors associated with abortion provision at follow-up include strength of intention to provide at graduation and higher volume of uterine aspirations performed during residency. Graduates reported a range of barriers, including internal factors such as strength of competing interests, and external barriers such as administrative and staff resistance. Graduates found the additional procedural training, networking opportunities, and the complication simulation to be the most helpful aspects of the CREATE program. CONCLUSIONS: The CREATE program model may provide a useful template for family medicine residencies working to incorporate advanced abortion training or other advanced procedural skills into their curricula. Future curricular interventions should consider providing additional postgraduate support, particularly in provider shortage areas.

A long-term evaluation of a required reproductive health training rotation with opt-out provisions for family medicine residents.

BACKGROUND: Family physicians are critical to reproductive health care provision. Previous studies have evaluated the immediate impact of training family physicians in abortion and reproductive health care but have not conducted long-term follow-up of those trained. METHODS: In a cross-sectional survey performed in 2009, all 2003--2008 graduates from four family medicine residency programs with a required abortion training rotation with opt-out provisions were asked to participate in a confidential online follow-up survey that was linked to rotation evaluations. The follow-up surveys addressed current reproductive health practice, desire to integrate services in ideal practice, perceived barriers, and desired support for provision of services. RESULTS: Of 183 eligible graduates, 173 had contact information, and 116 completed the survey. The majority of respondents had provided a range of reproductive health services since residency. Of full training participants, many had performed IUD insertion (72%), endometrial biopsies (55%), miscarriage management (52%), and abortion (27%), compared to 39%, 22%, 17%, and 0% of opt-out training participants, respectively. Of those residents intending future abortion provision, 40% went on to do so. In multivariate analysis among full participants, procedural volume was positively correlated with future abortion provision after controlling for intention to provide abortions, gender, and residency program (adjusted OR=1.42 [95% CI=1.03--1.94]). While most respondents considered comprehensive reproductive health services including miscarriage management and abortion as important to include in their ideal practice, many faced barriers to providing all the services they desired. CONCLUSIONS: Family medicine residency graduates fully participating in abortion training reported increased provision of most reproductive health services compared to opt-out graduates. Many intending to provide abortions reported a variety of barriers to provision. Training programs that provide assistance for overcoming obstacles to practice initiation may improve comprehensive reproductive health provision among graduates.

Evidence-based IUD practice: family physicians and obstetrician-gynecologists.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Family physicians and obstetrician-gynecologists provide much of contraceptive care in the United States and have a shared goal in preventing unintended pregnancy among patients. We assessed their competency to offer women contraceptives of the highest efficacy levels. METHODS: We conducted a national probability survey of family physicians and obstetrician-gynecologists (n=1,192). We measured counseling and provision practices of intrauterine contraception and used multivariable regression analysis to evaluate the importance of evidence-based knowledge to contraceptive care. RESULTS: Family physicians reported seeing fewer contraceptive patients per week than did obstetrician-gynecologists and were less likely to report sufficient time for counseling. While 95% of family physicians believed patients were receptive to learning about intrauterine contraception, fewer than half offered counseling or the method. Only half were trained to competence to offer intrauterine contraception, while virtually all obstetrician-gynecologists were. Both family physicians and obstetrician-gynecologists were unlikely to have adequate knowledge of the women who would be good candidates for intrauterine contraception-as gauged by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Medical Eligibility Criteria for contraception-and consequently did not offer the method to a wide range of eligible patients. CONCLUSIONS: Most family physicians providing contraceptive care were not offering methods with top-tier effectiveness, although they reported interest in updating contraceptive skills through training. Obstetrician-gynecologists had technical skills to offer intrauterine contraception but still required education on patient selection. Greater hands-on training opportunities for family physicians, and complementary education on eligible method candidates for obstetrician-gynecologists, can increase access to intrauterine contraception by women seeking contraceptive care.