Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Special Statement: Maternal-fetal medicine subspecialist survey on abortion training and service provision.

Following a collaborative workshop at the 39th Annual Pregnancy Meeting, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Reproductive Health Advisory Group identified a need to assess the attitudes of maternal-fetal medicine subspecialists about abortion services and the available resources at the local and regional levels. The purpose of this study was to identify trends in attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of practicing maternal-fetal medicine subspecialists in the United States regarding abortion. An online survey was distributed to associate and regular members of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine to assess their personal training experience, abortion practice patterns, factors that influence their decision to provide abortion care, and their responses to a series of scenarios about high-risk maternal or fetal medical conditions. Frequencies were analyzed and univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted on the survey responses. Of the 2751 members contacted, 546 Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine members completed all (448 of 546, 82.1%) or some (98 of 546, 17.9%) of the survey. More than 80% of the respondents reported availability of abortion services in their state, 70% reported availability at their primary institution, and 44% reported provision as part of their personal medical practice. Ease of referral to family planning subspecialists or other abortion providers, institutional restrictions, and the lack of training or continuing education were identified as the most significant factors contributing to the respondents' limited scope of abortion services or lack of any abortion services offered. In the univariable analysis, exposure to formal family planning training programs, fewer years since the completion of residency, current practice setting not being religiously affiliated, and current state categorized as supportive by the Guttmacher Institute's abortion policy landscape were factors associated with abortion provision (all P values <.01). After controlling for these factors in a multivariable regression, exposure to formal family planning training programs was no longer associated with current abortion provision (P=.20; adjusted odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-2.10), whereas a favorable state policy environment and fewer years since the completion of residency remained associated with abortion provision. The results of this survey suggest that factors at the individual, institutional, and state levels affect the provision of abortion care by maternal-fetal medicine subspecialists. The subspecialty of maternal-fetal medicine should be active in ensuring adequate training and education to create a community of maternal-fetal medicine physicians able to provide comprehensive reproductive healthcare services.

Obstetrician-gynecologists and contraception: long-acting reversible contraception practices and education.

OBJECTIVES: Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) - the copper and levonorgestrel intrauterine devices (IUDs) and the single-rod implant - are safe and effective but account for a small proportion of contraceptive use by US women. This study examined obstetrician-gynecologists' knowledge, training, practice and beliefs regarding LARC methods. DESIGN: A survey questionnaire was mailed to 3000 Fellows of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. After exclusions, 1221 eligible questionnaires were analyzed (45.8% response rate, accounting for exclusions). RESULTS: Almost all obstetrician-gynecologists reported providing IUDs (95.8%). Most obstetrician-gynecologists reported requiring two or more visits for IUD insertion (86.9%). Respondents that reported IUD insertion in a single visit reported inserting a greater number of IUDs in the last year. About half reported offering the single-rod implant (51.3%). A total of 92.0% reported residency training on IUDs, and 50.8% reported residency training on implants. Residency training and physician age correlated with the number of IUDs inserted in the past year. A total of 59.6% indicated receiving continuing education on at least one LARC method in the past 2years. Recent continuing education was most strongly associated with implant insertion, and 31.7% of respondents cited lack of insertion training as a barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to LARC provision could be reduced if more obstetrician-gynecologists received implant training and provided same-day IUD insertion. Continuing education will likely increase implant provision. IMPLICATIONS: This study shows that obstetrician-gynecologists generally offer IUDs, but fewer offer the single-rod contraceptive implant. Recent continuing education strongly predicted whether obstetrician-gynecologists inserted implants and was also associated with other practices that encourage LARC use.

Obstetrician-gynecologists and contraception: practice and opinions about the use of IUDs in nulliparous women, adolescents and other patient populations.

OBJECTIVES: Use of intrauterine devices (IUDs) by US women is low despite their suitability for most women of reproductive age and in a variety of clinical contexts. This study examined obstetrician-gynecologists' practices and opinions about the use of IUDs in adolescents, nulliparous women and other patient groups, as well as for emergency contraception. DESIGN: A survey questionnaire was sent to a computer-generated sample of 3000 fellows who were reflective of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (College) membership. RESULTS: After exclusions from the 1552 returned surveys (51.7% response rate), 1150 eligible questionnaires were analyzed. Almost all obstetrician-gynecologists (95.8%) reported providing IUDs, but only 66.8% considered nulliparous women, and 43.0% considered adolescents appropriate candidates. Even among obstetrician-gynecologists who recalled reading a College publication about IUDs, only 78.0% and 45.0% considered nulliparous women and adolescents appropriate candidates, respectively. Few respondents (16.1%) had recommended the copper IUD as emergency contraception, and only 73.9% agreed that the copper IUD could be used as emergency contraception. A total of 67.3% of respondents agreed that an IUD can be inserted immediately after an abortion or miscarriage. Fewer (43.5%) agreed that an IUD can be inserted immediately postpartum, and very few provide these services (11.4% and 7.2%, respectively). Staying informed about practice recommendations for long-acting reversible contraception was associated with broader provision of IUDs. CONCLUSIONS: Although most obstetrician-gynecologists offer IUDs, many exclude appropriate candidates for IUD use, both for emergency contraception and for long-term use, despite evidence-based recommendations. IMPLICATIONS: This study shows that obstetrician-gynecologists still do not offer IUDs to appropriate candidates, such as nulliparous women and adolescents, and rarely provide the copper IUD as emergency contraception.