Strategies to develop an LGBTQIA+-inclusive adolescent sexual health program evaluation.

Introduction: Adolescent sexual health interventions are increasingly incorporating content that is inclusive of LGBTQIA+ youth (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, and other marginalized sexualities and genders). Evaluations of such programs must also be inclusive to enhance the validity of evaluation results and avoid further marginalization. We present strategies for increasing LGBTQIA+-inclusivity based on our evaluation of SafeSpace, a sexual health curriculum. Methods: To design an LGBTQIA+-inclusive program evaluation, we leveraged LGBTQIA+ research staff's insights, pursued a parental consent waiver, developed an inclusive recruitment plan, and crafted demographic and sexual behavior survey measures with input from youth and equity experts. We conducted a pilot study with 42 youth ages 14-17 to assess the feasibility and efficacy of our strategies. Results: We obtained a parental consent waiver and recruited a majority LGBTQIA+ pilot study sample (62%). Using themes from cognitive interviews with youth and experts regarding inclusive framing and use of plain language, we refined demographic measures and expanded sexual behavior measures. Conclusion: Findings suggest that the strategies used to enhance LGBTQIA+-inclusivity in our evaluation of SafeSpace were effective in respectfully and more accurately capturing a fuller range of experiences and identities of LGBTQIA+ and cis-straight youth. The strategies and survey measures developed for this study can be applied to increase LGBTQIA+-inclusivity in other adolescent sexual health program evaluations.

Comparative effectiveness of hysteroscopic and laparoscopic sterilization for women: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare real-world effectiveness of hysteroscopic to laparoscopic sterilization. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort of Medicaid claims for hysteroscopic or laparoscopic sterilization procedures performed in California, 2008-2014. After excluding postpartum procedures, we applied log-linear (Poisson) event-history regression models for clustered person-period data, weighted for propensity to receive either sterilization procedures, and adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical variables to examine the poststerilization pregnancy rates. SETTING: Clinics, hospitals. PATIENT(S): Women aged 18-50 years with Medicaid claims between January 1, 2008, and August 31, 2014. INTERVENTION(S): Hysteroscopic or laparoscopic sterilization procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Poststerilization pregnancy measured by pregnancy-related claims. RESULT(S): Among women with hysteroscopic (n = 5,906) or laparoscopic (n = 23,965) sterilization, poststerilization pregnancy claims were identified for 4.74% of women after hysteroscopic sterilization and 5.57% after laparoscopic sterilization. The pregnancy rates decreased over time after either procedure. Twelve months after the procedure, the crude incidence of pregnancy claims was higher for hysteroscopic sterilization than for laparoscopic sterilization (3.26 vs. 2.61 per 100 woman-years), but the propensity-weighted adjusted incidence rate ratio was 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.26). Between 13 and 24 months after the procedure, there were fewer pregnancies for women after hysteroscopic sterilizations than for those after laparoscopic sterilizations (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.45-0.88]), with no statistically significant differences in later years. The cumulative pregnancy rates 5 years after sterilization were lower with hysteroscopic sterilization than with laparoscopic sterilization (6.26 vs. 7.22 per 100 woman-years; propensity-weighted, adjusted risk ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62-0.90]). The poststerilization pregnancy rates varied by age and race/ethnicity. CONCLUSION(S): The pregnancy rates after female sterilization are higher than expected, whether performed hysteroscopically or laparoscopically. These findings are reassuring that the effectiveness of hysteroscopic sterilization was not inferior to laparoscopic sterilization. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03438682.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Intrauterine Contraception and Tubal Ligation.

BACKGROUND: Tubal ligation remains common in the USA, especially among low-income patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of intrauterine contraceptives (IUC) to laparoscopic tubal ligation for Medicaid clients. DESIGN: We partnered with patient and clinician stakeholders to conduct a retrospective cohort study using California Medicaid claims for patients who had an IUC placed or laparoscopic tubal ligation performed in 2008-2014, excluding procedures performed within 42 days of a birth. We applied log-linear (Poisson) event-history regression models for clustered person-period data to adjust for sociodemographic variables and pre-procedure health status when examining associations between these contraceptive procedures and claims related to contraceptive failure, complications, and pain in the first year post-procedure. KEY RESULTS: We identified 35,705 patients who had a levonorgestrel IUC placed, 23,628 patients who had a copper IUC placed, and 23,965 patients who underwent laparoscopic tubal ligation. In unadjusted analyses, rates of pregnancy within 1 year were similar following levonorgestrel IUC (2.40%) or copper IUC placement (2.99%) or tubal ligation (2.64%). In adjusted analyses, compared to tubal ligation, pregnancy was less common following placement of a levonorgestrel IUC (adj IRR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.82) and similar with placement of a copper IUC (adj IRR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82-1.05). Procedural complications such as infection (0.35% vs. 2.91%) were significantly less common with IUC placement than tubal ligation. Claims for pelvic and abdominal pain decreased in frequency with time since all procedures; 6 to 12 months post-procedure, pelvic pain claims were less common after levonorgestrel IUC (adj IRR 0.69, 95% CI 0.65-0.73) or copper IUC placement (adj IRR 0.70, 95% CI 0.66-0.75) than tubal ligation. CONCLUSIONS: IUC appears at least as effective as laparoscopic tubal ligation at 1-year post-procedure with lower rates of infection and pelvic pain 6 to 12 months post-procedure. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03438682.

Patient-Centered Safety Outcomes After Hysteroscopic Compared With Laparoscopic Sterilization.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the real-world safety of hysteroscopic compared with laparoscopic surgical sterilization. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicaid claims for hysteroscopic or laparoscopic sterilization procedures performed in California, 2008-2014, among women aged 18-50 years. After excluding postpartum procedures, we applied log-linear (Poisson) event-history regression models for clustered person-period data, weighted for propensity to receive either sterilization procedures, and adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics that may affect outcomes of interest to patients and physicians. We assessed the following outcomes: procedural complications, additional surgical procedures (eg, hysterectomy), repeat sterilization procedures, pelvic pain, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), abdominal pain, nonabdominal pain, and abnormal uterine bleeding. RESULTS: We identified 5,906 women who had undergone hysteroscopic and 23,965 who had undergone laparoscopic sterilization. After adjusting for sociodemographic and health history, women who had hysteroscopic sterilization were less likely to have claims for procedural complications (eg, transfusion, P<.001) on the day of surgical sterilization and additional surgical procedures (eg, hysterectomy, P=.002 at day 2-3 months postprocedure) than laparoscopic sterilization. Claims for a repeat attempt at sterilization were more common after hysteroscopic sterilization within 1 year (adjusted incident rate ratio 3.48, 95% CI 2.69-4.27) and within 5 years (adjusted incident rate ratio 2.32, 95% CI 1.84-2.79) than laparoscopic sterilization. Claims for pelvic pain (adjusted incident rate ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.65-0.92 at 2 years), abdominal pain (adjusted incident rate ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.93 at 7-12 months), and PID (adjusted incident rate ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.33-0.93 at 2 years) were less common after hysteroscopic than laparoscopic sterilization. Although abnormal uterine bleeding claims were more common after hysteroscopic than laparoscopic sterilization up to 12 months postprocedure (adjusted incident rate ratio 1.37, 95% CI 1.06-1.77 at 7-12 months), there were no significant differences between methods 1 year after the procedure. CONCLUSION: Compared with laparoscopic sterilization, hysteroscopic sterilization was followed by more claims for repeat sterilization procedures and abnormal uterine bleeding, but fewer procedural complications and fewer claims for pelvic or abdominal pain. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03438682.