"They Go Hand in Hand": Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Core Values of Family Medicine and Abortion Provision Among Family Physicians Who Do Not Oppose Abortion.

INTRODUCTION: Most family physicians do not provide abortion care, despite an apparent alignment between the defined values of family medicine and provision of abortion in primary care. This study seeks to understand how family physicians themselves perceive the relationship between their specialty's values and abortion provision. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews in 2019 with 56 family physicians who do not oppose abortion in the United States. We employed a deductive-inductive content analysis approach with memos to identify key themes. This analysis focuses on participants' beliefs in the core values of family medicine and how those values relate to abortion in family medicine. RESULTS: Participants identified and described six values of the specialty they prioritized, which included relationships, care across the lifespan, whole-person care, nonjudgmental care, meeting community needs, and social justice. Family physicians in the study overwhelmingly believed that abortion aligned with family medicine values, regardless of whether they themselves provided abortion care. CONCLUSIONS: Providing abortion care in primary care settings gives family physicians an opportunity to provide comprehensive care while improving access to meet community needs. As abortion care becomes increasingly restricted in the United States, family physicians can manifest the values of family medicine through integrating abortion care into their practices in states where abortion remains legal.

Exploring the impact of mifepristone's risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) on the integration of medication abortion into US family medicine primary care clinics✰,✰✰.

OBJECTIVES: In 2000, the United States' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved mifepristone for medication abortion. In this article, we explore how the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) criteria for mifepristone specifically impede family physicians' ability to provide medication abortion in primary care settings. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted 56 qualitative interviews with a national sample of family physicians across the US who were not opposed to abortion. We examined how the REMS criteria for mifepristone impact family physicians' ability to provide medication abortion. RESULTS: Of the 56 interviews conducted, 23 participants (41%) raised the REMS criteria as a barrier to providing medication abortion in primary care. These participants reported the REMS added a layer of bureaucratic complexity that made it difficult for family physicians to navigate, even when trained, to provide abortion care. These family physicians described 2 predominant ways the REMS impede their ability to provide medication abortion: (1) The REMS require substantial involvement of clinic administration, who can be unsupportive; (2) The complexity of navigating the REMS results in physicians and clinic administration in primary care viewing medication abortion as not worth the effort, since it is only a small component of services offered in primary care. CONCLUSION: Removing the REMS could simplify integration of medication abortion into primary care, which could meet patient preferences, improve access, and reduce abortion stigma. The FDA's revised REMS criteria may ease administrative burden but will likely maintain key barriers to integrating medication abortion into family physicians' practice. IMPLICATIONS: Our study highlights that the REMS criteria are barriers to family physicians' ability to integrate medication abortion into their primary care practices. The FDA's removal of in person dispensing criteria may provide some impetus for trained family physicians to integrate medication abortion into their scope of practice but the revised REMS criteria maintain key barriers to broader adoption.

Family Physicians' Barriers and Facilitators in Incorporating Medication Abortion.

PURPOSE: Medication abortion (MAB) provision by family physicians has the potential to expand abortion access. However, there are documented individual and structural barriers to provision. This study investigates how family physicians in the United States (US) navigate the barriers impeding abortion provision in primary care. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study on the experiences of US family physicians with MAB in primary care. We recruited participants at national conferences and via professional networks. This analysis focuses on the experiences of the subset of participants who expressed interest in providing MAB. RESULTS: Forty-eight participants met inclusion criteria, with representation from all 4 regions of the US. Participants had diverse experiences related to abortion provision, training, and the environment in which they practice, with a third of participants working in states with hostile abortion policies. We categorized participants into 3 groups: (1) doctors who did not receive training and do not provide abortions (n = 11), (2) doctors who received training but do not provide abortions (n = 20), and (3) doctors who received training and currently provide abortions (n = 17). We found that training, administrative and community support, and internal motivation to overcome barriers help family physicians integrate MAB in primary care practices. Federal and state laws, absence of training, stigma around abortion provision, inaccurate or limited knowledge of institutional barriers, and administrative resistance all contributed to doctors excluding abortion provision from their scope of practice. CONCLUSION: Improving medication abortion provision by family physicians requires addressing the individual and system barriers family physicians encounter so they receive the education, training, and support to successfully integrate abortion care into clinical practice.

Provision of Early Pregnancy Loss Care in New York Federally Qualified Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: Office-based early pregnancy loss (EPL) care is safe and suitable to Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs); prevalence of provision in FQHCs is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a mailed site-level survey of FQHCs in New York State (n = 405). Sites that offered prenatal care were eligible for analysis. Questions included provision of and barriers to providing EPL care options. Content analysis was used for write-in responses to barriers. We conducted bivariate analyses using Fisher's Exact tests and risk ratios to investigate associations between EPL care provision and the independent variables site urbanicity, prenatal clinician type, and ultrasound access. RESULTS: Of 181 mailings returned, 63 sites were eligible (response rate 44.7%); 88.9% provided expectant management, 53.9% medication management, and 23.8% uterine aspiration. Common barriers included lack of clinical infrastructure, poor ultrasound access, and insufficient training. Some held perceived barriers regarding uterine aspiration. Sites with regular ultrasound access were 1.85 times as likely to provide uterine aspiration as sites without regular ultrasound access (95% CI, 1.16-2.95). CONCLUSIONS: Few New York FQHCs provided comprehensive EPL care. Supporting FQHCs to overcome barriers may expand access to EPL treatment in primary care and increase continuity and patient centeredness.

Barriers and Enablers to Family Physicians' Provision of Early Pregnancy Loss Management in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Early pregnancy loss (EPL) is a common experience. Treatment options include expectant management, medication, and uterine aspiration. Although family physicians can offer comprehensive EPL treatment in their office-based settings, few actually do. This study explored the postresidency provision of EPL management and factors that inhibit or enable providing this care among family physicians trained in early abortion during residency. METHODS: Using an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design, we studied a sample of family physicians trained in early abortion during residency. We initially interviewed a subset trained in uterine aspiration during residency, then surveyed the entire sample. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using grounded theory; results informed survey development. On survey responses, we used Pearson χ2 to examine the association between certain variables and provision of EPL care options. RESULTS: Most of the 15 interview and 231 survey respondents provided expectant management of EPL. Of the survey respondents, 47.2% provided medication management and 11.4% manual vacuum aspiration. Key challenges and facilitators involved referral, training, ultrasound access, and managing systems-level issues. In bivariate analyses, providing prenatal care, offering abortion care, access to ultrasound, and competency were positively associated with providing EPL management options (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical training alone is insufficient to expand access to comprehensive EPL care in family medicine office-based settings. Supporting family physicians during and after residency with training and technical assistance to address barriers to care may strengthen their abilities to champion practice change and expand access to comprehensive EPL management options.

Intention to provide abortion upon completing family medicine residency and subsequent abortion provision: a 5-year follow-up survey.

OBJECTIVE: Among family physicians who graduated from residencies with abortion training, we explore the association between intention to provide abortion at the end of residency and abortion provision 5 years postresidency. STUDY DESIGN: We invited 2009-2012 graduates from US family medicine residency programs with a required opt-out abortion training rotation or elective abortion training opportunities, and who had completed a baseline end-of-residency survey (N=477) to take our follow-up survey 5 years postresidency (2014-2017). We used logistic regression to examine the association between intention to provide abortion postresidency and abortion provision 5 years later. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-two of 477 (36.1%) family physicians responded to our survey. More responders compared to nonresponders had intended to provide uterine aspiration and medication abortion at baseline (p≪.01) and attended residency in states considered hostile and middle ground toward abortion rights (p=.03). Of the 155 eligible respondents for analysis, 27.1% offered some type of abortion care in their practice. Of those that provided abortion, 100% provided medication abortion and 71.4% uterine aspiration. Most respondents that provided uterine aspiration abortion did so in abortion/family planning clinics or in sites that already established routine abortion care. Those who had intended to provide any abortion care at baseline had 4.03 times the odds of providing any abortion care 5 years later (95% confidence interval: 1.72-9.47). Administrative and systems-level barriers to integrate abortion were mentioned most frequently compared to personal beliefs or safety factors to explain why respondents did not provide abortion. CONCLUSIONS: We found an association between intention to provide abortion after residency and providing abortion in practice 5 years later. However, only 27.1% of respondents provided some abortion care. Factors beyond intention to provide care appear to inhibit or facilitate family physicians' abilities to practice abortion in primary care. IMPLICATIONS: Supporting family physicians who express intention to provide abortion after residency with additional training and technical assistance may contribute toward expanding access and availability of abortion care.

Association of reproductive health training on intention to provide services after residency: the family physician resident survey.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: High rates of unintended pregnancy and need for reproductive health services (RHS), including abortion, require continued efforts to train medical professionals and increase availability of these services. With US approval 12 years ago of Mifepristone, a medication abortion pill, abortion services are additionally amenable to primary care. Family physicians are a logical group to focus on given that they provide the bulk of primary care. METHODS: We analyzed data from an annual survey (2007--2010) of third-year family medicine residents (n=284, response rate=48%--64%) in programs offering abortion training to examine the association between such training and self-reported competence and intentions to provide RHS (with a particular focus on abortion) upon graduation from residency. RESULTS: The majority of residents (75% in most cases) were trained in each of the RHS we asked about; relatively fewer trained in implant insertion (39%), electric vacuum aspiration (EVA) (58%), and manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) (69%). Perceived competence on the part of the graduating residents ranged from high levels in pregnancy options counseling (89%) and IUD insertion (85%) to lows in ultrasound and EVA (both 34%). Bivariate analysis revealed significant associations between number of procedures performed and future intentions to provide them. The association between competence and intentions persisted for all procedures in multivariate analysis, adjusting for number of procedures. Further, the total number of abortions performed during residency increased the odds of intending to provide MVA and medication abortion by 3% and 2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support augmenting training in RHS for family medicine residents, given that almost half (45%) of those trained intended to provide abortions. The volume of training should be increased so more residents feel competent, particularly in light of the fact that combined exposure to different abortion procedures has a cumulative impact on intention to provide MVA and medication abortion.