A national analysis of ED presentations for early pregnancy and complications: Implications for post-Roe America.

BACKGROUND: Most obstetric emergencies are initially managed in the emergency department (ED). The Supreme Court decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade, in June 2022, eliminated constitutional protection of abortion rights, allowing states to swiftly enact laws that can greatly change reproductive medicine. In this post-Roe landscape, the ambiguity and uncertainty being imposed on clinicians regarding the legality of certain interventions may have catastrophic effects. To understand and plan for the changes that will come and attempt to mitigate adverse outcomes, the authors first assessed the current state of pregnancy-related complication care in the ED setting. This study utilized data obtained from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) to evaluate trends in pregnancy-related ED visits from 2016 to 2020 that could be impacted by restricted abortion access and trigger laws. The authors subsequently analyzed the legislative changes and translated the pertinent ones to dispel misunderstandings and provide a framework for appropriate medical practice. METHODS: The retrospective study utilized data from the NHAMCS database from 2016 to 2020, encompassing an estimated total of 4,556,778 pregnancy-related ED visits. NHAMCS is a multi-stage probabilistic sample collected by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) using an annual survey of EDs in the United States. All data were summarized using descriptive statistics such as proportions and 95% confidence intervals Furthermore, the supreme court decision was analyzed in addition to multiple state laws and legal texts. The findings were summarized and discussed. RESULTS: The majority (79.4%) of all studied visits were for patients between the ages of 18-34 years, capturing those in peak reproductive years. This age group also comprised of the bulk (76.4%) of visits for pathologic pregnancies, including ectopic and molar pregnancies, and 79.8% of visits for a spontaneous miscarriage or threatened miscarriage in early pregnancy. Black patients accounted for 25.7%, white patients 70.1%. Regarding ethnicity, patients were separated into Hispanic and non-Hispanic, with Hispanic patients comprising 27% of all ED visits for included diagnoses between 2016 and 2020. Most visits for complications following an induced abortion occurred in the south (70.8%) and were nearly twice as likely to occur in non-metropolitan areas. Approximately 18% patients presenting with a pathologic pregnancy required admission to the hospital and approximately 50% of those visits for pathologic pregnancies and visits for bleeding in pregnancy had a procedure in the ED (49.8% and 49.5%). There were 111,264 estimated visits in which methotrexate was administered, amounting to approximately 1 in 7 visits for ectopic or molar pregnancy. In this data set, approximately 14,000 miscarriage and early bleeding patients received misoprostol. CONCLUSION: Pregnancy-related ED visits comprise of a significant proportion of emergency care. As it relates to many of the trends previously elucidated on, the true extent of the burden cannot be predicted. It must be emphasized that contrary to popular belief, Dobbs v. Jackson does not prohibit termination of pregnancy in the setting of life-threatening conditions to the mother, including ectopic pregnancy, preeclampsia, and others, but the resultant uncertainty and ambiguity surrounding the constitutional change is leading to an over-compliance of the law, necessarily obstructing reproductive health care. The authors recommend that physicians be mindful of the rapidly-evolving laws in their particular state, and to also practice in accordance with Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Patient safety must be prioritized.

A model of health care provider decision making about HPV vaccination in adolescent males.

INTRODUCTION: In the U.S., HPV vaccination of adolescent males remains low, despite the recommendation for routine vaccination. Although research has highlighted that health care provider (HCP) recommendation is very influential in HPV vaccine uptake, research on this topic in the male population is lacking. Accordingly, we used a qualitative approach to identify HCP knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding adolescent male HPV vaccination, one year, after routine vaccination of adolescent males was recommended. METHOD: A total of 20 U.S. pediatric HCPs participated in 20-30 min interviews about knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding male HPV vaccination. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and, analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: The providers had been in practice for 1-35 years, 75% were female, and 75% were White. Opinions on HPV vaccination were shaped by knowledge/perception of the risks and benefits of vaccination. Although all providers frequently offered HPV vaccine to male patients, the strength and content of the offer varied greatly. Vaccination opinions determined what issues were emphasized in the vaccine offer (e.g., stressing herd immunity, discussing prevention of genital warts), while adolescent age influenced if and how they pitched their vaccine offer (e.g., HPV as a STI). Most providers agreed with the ACIP recommendations, however, several expressed that providers' preexisting opinions might remain unchanged despite the recommendations. Consistent with the literature on determinants of HPV vaccination, providers believed that their own recommendation was a major factor in a family's decision to vaccinate. Barriers to vaccination included the "newness" and sexual nature of the vaccine, lack of insurance coverage, and the vaccine not being mandated. CONCLUSIONS: Providers' opinions about, and approaches to offering, HPV vaccination to males were highly variable. Interventions designed to improve male HPV vaccination should focus on helping providers to routinely recommend the vaccine to all of their eligible patients, both males and females.

Vaccinating sons against HPV: results from a U.S. national survey of parents.

PURPOSE: The quadrivalent HPV vaccination was approved for use in males ages 9 to 26 in 2009 and recommended for routine administration in 2011. The purpose of this study was to uncover predictable commonalities amongst parents who chose to vaccinate their 11-17 year old sons against HPV. METHODS: We compiled data from a U.S. national sample of 779 parents with sons 11-17 years old using a web-based survey to gather information about behavioral and sociodemographic factors which predicted receipt of 1 or more HPV vaccine doses based on parental report. Predictors were first modeled individually for univariable associations. Significant predictors (p<0.10) were combined in a multivariable model. RESULTS: In the adjusted model, independent predictors included receipt of flu vaccination, health insurance coverage and sexual health topic discussions with sons. Sons who had received a flu shot in the last two years more frequently received at least one dose of the vaccine (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.45-2.26). Sons covered by private health insurance had decreased odds of HPV vaccination (OR 0.56 95% CI 0.37-0.83). Lastly, parents who had discussed sexual health topics with their sons were more likely to vaccinate (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.37-1.89). CONCLUSIONS: Male vaccination rates in the U.S. have increased, but males continue to be under-immunized. Utilization of health care is an important factor in HPV vaccine uptake; therefore, health care providers should use every contact as an opportunity to vaccinate. Communication about sexual health topics may provide a forum for parents and health care providers to have conversations about HPV vaccination as those more comfortable discussing these topics may also be more comfortable discussing HPV vaccination.

Acceptability of the human papillomavirus vaccine and reasons for non-vaccination among parents of adolescent sons.

Routine administration of the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has been recommended for 11-12-year-old males since 2011, but coverage remains low. In a U.S. national sample of parents of 11-17-year-old males (n=779), 78.6% of parents reported their sons had not received the HPV vaccine. The most common reason for non-vaccination (56.7%) was "My doctor or healthcare provider has not recommended it." Parents citing only logistical reasons for non-vaccination (e.g., lack of recommendation, access, or education, n=384) reported significantly higher vaccine acceptability than parents reporting a combination of attitudinal (e.g., concerns about vaccine safety or efficacy) and logistical barriers (n=92), while parents citing only attitudinal barriers (n=73) reported the lowest level of vaccine acceptability. In sum, many parents are willing but have not vaccinated sons due to logistical barriers, most commonly lack of healthcare provider recommendation. These findings have important implications for increasing HPV vaccination coverage among adolescent males.

What parents and their adolescent sons suggest for male HPV vaccine messaging.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article was to identify the information parents and their adolescent sons deem important when making the decision to get vaccinated against human papillomavirus (HPV). METHOD: Twenty-one adolescent males (ages 13 to 17), with no previous HPV vaccination, and their parents were recruited from adolescent primary care clinics serving low- to middle-income families in a large Midwestern city. Dyad members participated in separate semistructured interviews eliciting the information participants felt would increase vaccine uptake and series completion via media and clinic-based sources. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Overall, participants felt fear-based messages would be most effective for increasing vaccination uptake through commercials. When describing clinic messages, parents and sons felt the most important component was a recommendation for vaccination from the health care provider (HCP). Additionally, parents desired more information about the vaccine from the HCP than the sons, including cost, number of shots, and time since the approval of the vaccine for males. Compared with the clinic message, the commercial message was a vector for vaccine awareness, whereas the clinic message was a source of vaccine information. Vaccine initiation messages should provide vaccine information and come from an HCP, whereas completion messages should remind the patient why they initiated the vaccine and can come from any medical staff. CONCLUSIONS: Family/individual-focused interventions should be tailored to message source, timing, and target audience. This information can be used to guide public health professionals in the development of interventions to increase vaccine uptake.

Parent-son decision-making about human papillomavirus vaccination: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Licensed for use in males in 2009, Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates in adolescent males are extremely low. Literature on HPV vaccination focuses on females, adult males, or parents of adolescent males, without including adolescent males or the dynamics of the parent-son interaction that may influence vaccine decision-making. The purpose of this paper is to examine the decision-making process of parent-son dyads when deciding whether or not to get vaccinated against HPV. METHODS: Twenty-one adolescent males (ages 13-17), with no previous HPV vaccination, and their parents/guardians were recruited from adolescent primary care clinics serving low to middle income families in a large Midwestern city. Dyad members participated in separate semi-structured interviews assessing the relative role of the parent and son in the decision regarding HPV vaccination. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Parents and sons focused on protection as a reason for vaccination; parents felt a need to protect their child, while sons wanted to protect their own health. Parents and sons commonly misinterpreted the information about the vaccine. Sons were concerned about an injection in the penis, while some parents and sons thought the vaccine would protect them against other sexually transmitted infections including Herpes, Gonorrhea, and HIV. Parents and sons recalled that the vaccine prevented genital warts rather than cancer. The vaccine decision-making process was rapid and dynamic, including an initial reaction to the recommendation for HPV vaccine, discussion between parent and son, and the final vaccine decision. Provider input was weighed in instances of initial disagreement. Many boys felt that this was the first health care decision that they had been involved in. Dyads which reported shared decision-making were more likely to openly communicate about sexual issues than those that agreed the son made the decision. CONCLUSION: Parents and sons play an active role in the decision-making process, with an individual's role being influenced by many factors. The results of this study may be used to guide the messages presented by clinicians when recommending the HPV vaccine, and future vaccine uptake interventions.

Human papillomavirus vaccine and men: what are the obstacles and challenges?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The present review describes the indications for vaccinating men with the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, reports on the US rates of male vaccination, and reviews the recent research on acceptability of vaccinating men and research on the cost-effectiveness of adding men to existing female HPV immunization programs. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent evidence shows that the quadrivalent HPV vaccine prevents several HPV-related diseases in men. However, despite the licensure of the vaccine in the USA for men 9 through 26 years of age, rates of male vaccination are very low. Research on acceptability, in general, indicates strong interest in vaccination among men, parents, and healthcare providers, though female vaccination is typically seen as a higher priority. Cost-effectiveness studies indicate that in the context of modest female vaccination rates and with the specification of a broad range of disease outcomes (e.g. genital warts, anogenital cancers, and oropharyngeal cancers), male vaccination can be quite cost-effective. SUMMARY: Men are at high risk for HPV infection and can benefit from vaccination, but vaccination rates among men remain extremely low. More research needs to be done on the predictors of uptake of HPV vaccine among men and on the development of interventions to increase male vaccination.