Telemedicine for Contraceptive Counseling During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Referral Patterns and Attendance at Follow-Up Visits.

Objective: To describe referral patterns and attendance at follow-up visits for patients who received contraceptive counseling via telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. Study Design: This is a prospective study of patients seen remotely during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City. We tracked referral rates, referral reasons, in-person visit show rates, and additional visits. We also administered a patient survey at 6 months. Using Stata SE 16, we conducted a multivariable modified Poisson regression with robust error variances to examine the predictors of attending an in-person visit within 30 days. Results: We included 169 patients who had visits between April 1 and June 30, 2020. Of these, 109 (64.5%) were referred for in-person visits, and 83 (76.1%) of those referred attended within 30 days. The most common reasons for referral were long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) removal and insertion. The relative risk (RR) of attending a visit within 30 days of referral was 24% higher for those referred for LARC removal compared with those referred for other reasons (RR 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.69), and it was 29% lower for those aged 18-25 compared with those in the reference age (26-35) group (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-0.98). At 6 months, 69.4% of patients were still using the method they decided on at the telemedicine visit, and 44.4% would choose telemedicine for their next contraception visit. Conclusions: Approximately one third of patients seeking contraceptive counseling via telemedicine did not seek additional in-person visits over a 6-month period. Among the patients referred for in-person visits, referral reason and patient age may impact attendance rates.

Breastfeeding and contraception counseling: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this qualitative study were to better understand women's experiences regarding contraceptive choice, breastfeeding intentions and the relationship between the two. Women are routinely presented with counseling on breastfeeding and contraception throughout their prenatal and postpartum care, but little is published on patients' own priorities, desires and experiences of this peripartum counseling. This article aims to address this gap in the literature. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients in the immediate postpartum period. The interview guide explored: 1) timing and content of contraceptive counseling; 2) breastfeeding goals and expectations; 3) reasons for contraceptive choices; and 4) recommendations for counseling. Interview transcripts were coded to identify themes and analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty interviews were conducted. The participants were reflective of our patient population in the Bronx, with ninety percent using Medicaid for insurance and fifteen percent concerned about food security in the past month, well-validated questions reflective of poverty and socioeconomic status. Three themes emerged from the interviews: (1) using contraception was described as a selfish decision by the mother without benefit to the newborn; (2) women felt pressure to breastfeed and saw the inability to breastfeed as a personal failure; and (3) medical providers were viewed as more trustworthy when it came to information regarding breastfeeding as opposed to contraceptive options, where decisions relied on anecdotes from friends or family. CONCLUSIONS: Most decision-making regarding breastfeeding and contraception relied on the personal experiences of the participants and their friends and family. A clear need for support for women who are unable to breastfeed and education about the benefits of contraception for the newborn was identified.

Telemedicine for contraceptive counseling: Patient experiences during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City.

OBJECTIVE: During theCOVID-19 pandemic, many clinicians increased provision of telemedicine services. This study describes patient experiences with telemedicine for contraceptive counseling during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City. STUDY DESIGN: This is a mixed-methods study which includes a web-based or phone survey and in-depth phone interviews with patients who had telemedicine visits for contraception. RESULTS: A total of 169 patients had eligible telemedicine visits between April 1 and June 30, 2020. Of these, 86 (51%) responded to the survey, and 23 (14%) participated in the interviews. We found that 86% of survey respondents were very satisfied with the telemedicine visit, and 63% said it completely met their needs. A majority (73%) strongly agreed that these visits should be maintained after the COVID-19 pandemic, and half (51%) would be very likely to choose them over in-person visits. In-depth interviews highlighted the convenience of telemedicine, especially for those with work or parenting responsibilities. Although some patients had in-person visits after telehealth, many appreciated the counseling they received remotely, and found the subsequent in-person visits more efficient. Patients identified visits that do not require physical exams as ideal visits for telehealth, and some hoped that all or most of their future visits would be telehealth visits. Many patients (43%) expressed a preference for phone over video visits. CONCLUSIONS: Patients reported an overall positive experience with telemedicine visits for contraceptive counseling during the COVID-19 pandemic. They appreciated the convenience of telemedicine visits and valued the virtual counseling experience. IMPLICATIONS: Health care providers who initiated or expanded telemedicine services for contraceptive counseling during the COVID-19 pandemic should consider continuing to offer them after the pandemic. At the policy level, these findings favor expanding access to telemedicine and providing reimbursement for virtual visits, including telephone visits.

Telemedicine for contraceptive counseling: An exploratory survey of US family planning providers following rapid adoption of services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many clinicians started offering telemedicine services. The objective of this study is to describe the experience of US family planning providers with the rapid adoption of telemedicine for contraceptive counseling during this period. STUDY DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional web-based survey of family planning providers practicing in the United States. RESULTS: A total of 172 providers completed the survey (34% response rate). Of these, 156 (91%) provided telemedicine services in the 2 months preceding the survey. Most (78%) were new to telemedicine. About half (54%) referred less than a quarter of contraception patients for in-person visits, and 53% stated that the most common referral reason was long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) insertion. A majority of providers strongly agree that telemedicine visits are an effective way to provide contraceptive counseling (80%), and that this service should be expanded after the pandemic (84%). If asked to provide telemedicine visits after the pandemic, 64% of providers would be very happy about it. Many providers used personal phones or smartphones to conduct telemedicine visits but stated that ideal devices would be work-issued computers, tablets, or phones. More than half (59%) of providers prefer video over phone visits. CONCLUSIONS: Family planning clinicians in the United States reported a positive experience with telemedicine for contraceptive counseling during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic and believe that this service should be expanded. Clinicians seem to prefer using work-issued devices and conducting video rather than phone visits. IMPLICATIONS: Telemedicine is a promising option for providing contraceptive counseling even beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. An investment in hospital or clinic-issued devices that allow for video conferencing may optimize clinicians' telemedicine experience.

The cost of improving care: a multisite economic analysis of hospital resource use for implementing recommended postpartum contraception programmes.

BACKGROUND: The costs of quality improvement efforts in real-world settings are often unquantified. Better understanding could guide appropriate resource utilisation and drive efficiency. Immediate postpartum contraceptive care (ie, placement of an intrauterine device or contraceptive implant during hospitalisation for childbirth) represents an excellent case study for examining costs, because recommended services are largely unavailable and adoption requires significant effort. We therefore evaluated the cost of implementing immediate postpartum contraceptive services at four academic centres and one private hospital in USA. METHODS: In this mixed-methods cost analysis, implementation activities were retrospectively identified using standardised data collection. Activities were categorised as preimplementation activities (infrastructure building, tool creation and stakeholder engagement) or execution activities (workforce training and process refinement). Costs were assigned based on national median salaries for the roles of individuals involved. Cross-case comparison and rapid qualitative analysis guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research were used to identify factors driving cost variation observed across sites. RESULTS: On average, implementation activities required 204 hours (range 119-368), with this time costing $14 433.94 (range $9955.61-$23 690.49), and involving 9 (range 7-11) key team members per site. Preimplementation activities required more resources than execution activities (preimplementation: average 173 hours, $11 573.25; execution: average 31 hours, $2860.67). Sites that used lower-cost employees (eg, shifting tasks from a physician to a project manager) observed lower costs per hour for implementation activities. Implementation activities and costs were associated with local contextual factors, including stakeholder acceptance, integration of employees and infrastructure readiness for the change effort. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide the first estimates of health system costs for adopting recommended contraceptive care in maternity units in USA. More broadly, our findings suggest that the budget impact of improvement efforts may vary widely depending on local context.

Placement of Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device at the Time of Cesarean Delivery and the Effect on Breastfeeding Duration.

Objectives: Studies have shown that immediate postpartum initiation of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) methods leads to increased utilization of LARC and prevention of unintended pregnancies. It is unclear if immediate postpartum levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) insertion has an effect on breastfeeding success. Study Design: This study was a secondary analysis of a randomized trial that compared intrauterine device (IUD) use at 6 months postpartum among women who underwent intracesarean IUD placement with women who planned for interval IUD placement at 6 or more weeks postpartum. This parallel, 1:1, nonblinded randomized trial was conducted between March 2012 and June 2014 at the University of North Carolina Women's Hospital. We recruited pregnant women aged 18-45 years who were undergoing a cesarean delivery and desired an IUD for contraception postpartum. Results: We received breastfeeding information from 63 women who desired to use a LNG-IUD. A proportion analysis demonstrated that there was no difference in the proportion of women breastfeeding at any of the three time points, 6, 12, and 24 weeks, following placement. This remained true after adjusting for age, parity, and ethnicity. Conclusion: This study adds to the existing body of evidence that shows that most women are able to successfully breastfeed after immediate postpartum LNG-IUD placement. Women should be encouraged to breastfeed, and the desire to breastfeed should not preclude the initiation of a postplacental IUD. This study provides reassurance that immediate postpartum LNG-IUD placement does not adversely affect breastfeeding; however, more high-quality data are needed on the impact of hormonal IUDs on breastfeeding outcomes.

Etonogestrel-Releasing Contraceptive Implant for Postpartum Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare immediate postpartum insertion of the contraceptive implant to placement at the 6-week postpartum visit among adolescent and young women. DESIGN: Non-blinded, randomized controlled trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Postpartum adolescents and young women ages 14-24 years who delivered at an academic tertiary care hospital serving rural and urban populations in North Carolina. INTERVENTIONS: Placement of an etonogestrel-releasing contraceptive implant before leaving the hospital postpartum, or at the 4-6 week postpartum visit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Contraceptive implant use at 12 months postpartum. RESULTS: Ninety-six participants were randomized into the trial. Data regarding use at 12 months were available for 64 participants, 37 in the immediate group and 27 in the 6-week group. There was no difference in use at 12 months between the immediate group and the 6-week group (30 of 37, 81% vs 21 of 27, 78%; P = .75). At 3 months, the immediate group was more likely to have the implant in place (34 of 37, 92% vs 19 of 27, 70%; P = .02). CONCLUSION: Placing the contraceptive implant in the immediate postpartum period results in a higher rate of use at 3 months postpartum and appears to have similar use rates at 12 months compared with 6-week postpartum placement. Providing contraceptive implants to adolescents before hospital discharge takes advantage of access to care, increases the likelihood of effective contraception in the early postpartum period, appears to have no adverse effects on breastfeeding, and might lead to increased utilization at 1 year postpartum.

Predictors of Non-Attendance to the Postpartum Follow-up Visit.

Objectives This study aimed to measure the incidence and identify predictors of postpartum visit non-attendance, using medical records of women who received prenatal care and went on to deliver live births at Montefiore Hospital in 2013. Methods Pearson's Chi square tests were used to assess the association between maternal demographics, insurance status, and delivery information with non-attendance of a postpartum visit. Logistic regression and modified Poisson regression models were then used to identify statistically significant predictors of postpartum visit non-attendance. Results We found that one-third of all women who attended a prenatal visit at Montefiore Hospital did not return for a postpartum visit. Variables significantly associated with non-attendance include having Medicaid or no insurance (RR 1.4, 95 % CI 1.2-1.6), being Hispanic or Latino (RR 1.2, 95 % CI 1.1-1.3), having a vaginal delivery (RR 1.2, 95 % CI 1.1-1.4), and age <20 years (RR 0.77, 95 % CI 0.64-0.92). Conclusions for Practice We conclude that the risk of postpartum visit non-attendance disproportionately impacts socially and economically vulnerable patients who are: younger, part of a minority ethnic background, and depend on state funded health insurance. Our results highlight the disparity in access to postpartum care and the importance of identifying barriers to attendance as well as developing creative strategies of providing postpartum care outside of the traditional postpartum visit framework.

Information about Sexual Health on Crisis Pregnancy Center Web Sites: Accurate for Adolescents?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality and accuracy of sexual health information on crisis pregnancy center Web sites listed in state resource directories for pregnant women, and whether these Web sites specifically target adolescents. DESIGN: A survey of sexual health information presented on the Web sites of crisis pregnancy centers. SETTING: Internet. PARTICIPANTS: Crisis pregnancy center Web sites. INTERVENTIONS: Evaluation of the sexual health information presented on crisis pregnancy center Web sites. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Themes included statements that condoms are not effective, promotion of abstinence-only education, availability of comprehensive sexual education, appeal to a young audience, provision of comprehensive sexual health information, and information about sexually transmitted infections (STIs). RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Crisis pregnancy center Web sites provide inaccurate and misleading information about condoms, STIs, and methods to prevent STI transmission. This information might be particularly harmful to adolescents, who might be unable to discern the quality of sexual health information on crisis pregnancy center Web sites. Listing crisis pregnancy centers in state resource directories might lend legitimacy to the information on these Web sites. States should be discouraged from listing Web sites as an accurate source of information in their resource directories.

Intrauterine Device Placement During Cesarean Delivery and Continued Use 6 Months Postpartum: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare intrauterine device (IUD) use at 6 months postpartum among women who underwent intracesarean delivery (during cesarean delivery) IUD placement compared with women who planned for interval IUD placement 6 or more weeks postpartum. METHODS: In this nonblinded randomized trial, women who were undergoing a cesarean delivery and desired an IUD were randomized to intracesarean delivery or interval IUD placement. The primary outcome was IUD use at 6 months postpartum. A sample size of 112 (56 in each group) was planned to detect a 15% difference in IUD use at 6 months postpartum between groups. RESULTS: From March 2012 to June 2014, 172 women were screened and 112 women were randomized into the trial. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Data regarding IUD use at 6 months postpartum were available for 98 women, 48 and 50 women in the intracesarean delivery and interval groups, respectively. A larger proportion of the women in the intracesarean delivery group were using an IUD at 6 months postpartum (40/48 [83%]) compared with those in the interval group (32/50 [64%], relative risk 1.3, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.66). Among the 56 women randomized to interval IUD insertion, 22 (39%) of them never received an IUD; 14 (25%) never returned for IUD placement, five (9%) women declined an IUD, and three (5%) had a failed IUD placement. CONCLUSION: Intrauterine device placement at the time of cesarean delivery leads to a higher proportion of IUD use at 6 months postpartum when compared with interval IUD placement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

A randomized trial of levonorgestrel intrauterine system insertion 6 to 48 h compared to 6 weeks after vaginal delivery; lessons learned.

The objective of this randomized trial was to compare breastfeeding among women who received a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system within 6-48 h (early) or 4-6 weeks (standard) after an uncomplicated vaginal birth. Analysis groups of 86 women in each arm were needed to demonstrate a 20% difference in any breastfeeding. Thirty-five women were randomized to the early (N=17) and standard (N=18) arms. The combination of unsuccessful placement (2/17; 12%), expulsions (7/17; 41%) and removals (3/17; 18%) reached 71% (12/17) in the early arm, so the study was stopped. In our small study cohort, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion between 6 and 48 h after vaginal birth was associated with a high rate of expulsion or removal soon after insertion.

Crisis pregnancy center websites: Information, misinformation and disinformation.

OBJECTIVE: Most states with 24-h waiting periods prior to abortion provide state resource directories to women seeking abortion. Our objective was to evaluate the information on abortion provided on the websites of crisis pregnancy centers listed in these resource directories. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a survey of the websites of crisis pregnancy centers referenced in state resource directories for pregnant women. We searched for these state-provided resource directories online. We contacted state Departments of Health and Human Services for a print copy when a directory could not be found online. The crisis pregnancy center websites were evaluated for the information provided on abortion. Standardized data collection tools were used. Descriptive statistics were generated. RESULTS: Resource directories of 12 states were procured. A total of 254 websites referring to 348 crisis pregnancy centers were identified. Overall, a total of 203/254 [80%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 75%-84%] of websites provided at least one false or misleading piece of information. The most common misleading or false information included on the websites were a declared link between abortion and mental health risks (122/254 sites; 48%, 95% CI 42%-54%), preterm birth (54/254; 21%, 95% CI 17%-27%), breast cancer (51/254; 20%, 95% CI 16%-25%) and future infertility (32/254; 13%, 95% CI 9%-17%). CONCLUSION: Most crisis pregnancy centers listed in state resource directories for pregnant women provide misleading or false information regarding the risks of abortion. States should not list agencies that provide inaccurate information as resources in their directories.

Screening women for oral contraception: can family history identify inherited thrombophilias?

OBJECTIVE: Screening for inherited thrombophilias with laboratory tests is impractical before starting women on combined oral contraceptives. As an alternative, some recommend eliciting a family history of venous thromboembolism. The validity of this approach, however, remains unclear. DATA SOURCES: We sought all published reports that correlated a family history of venous thromboembolism with any thrombophilia confirmed by laboratory test. We used sequential, overlapping computer searches including MeSH terms used for articles in PubMed, a narrative search phrase in Google Scholar, and then all "related" articles in PubMed for each article included without time or language limitations. This was supplemented by a search of www.clinicaltrials.gov. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: The search yielded 10 reports. Information was sought without success from corresponding authors of four other reports that may have had relevant data. Most reports studied atypical, high-prevalence referral populations. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Results were presented according to the MOOSE (Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology) guidelines for systematic reviews of observational studies. The patient populations varied widely, definitions of family history included first- or first- and second-degree relatives, and the thrombophilias studied differed among these reports. Hence, aggregation of results was not possible. Despite these differences, all reports consistently documented poor validity of family history for detecting thrombophilias. Sensitivity ranged from 16% to 63% and positive predictive value from 6% to 50% for the various thrombophilias studied. In no study did family history meet the benchmark for a good test (sensitivity plus specificity greater than 150%). CONCLUSION: Obtaining a family history of venous thromboembolism before starting combined oral contraceptives is not a valid means to detect a woman's risk of thrombophilia. Even in high-prevalence populations, in which the positive predictive value is increased, a positive family history of venous thromboembolism was no better than flipping a coin in predicting thrombophilia.

Abortion misinformation from crisis pregnancy centers in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the accuracy of medical information provided by crisis pregnancy centers in North Carolina. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a secondary data analysis of a "secret shopper survey" performed by a nonprofit organization. Reports from phone calls and visits to crisis pregnancy centers were analyzed for quality and content of medical information provided. Web sites of crisis pregnancy centers in the state were also reviewed. RESULTS: Thirty-two crisis pregnancy centers were contacted. Nineteen of these were visited. Fourteen centers (44%) offered that they "provide counseling on abortion and its risks." Inaccurate information provided included a link between abortion and breast cancer (16%), infertility (26%) and mental health problems (26%). Of the 36 Web sites identified, 31 (86%) provided false or misleading information, including 26 sites (72%) linking abortion to "post-abortion stress." CONCLUSIONS: Many crisis pregnancy centers give inaccurate medical information regarding the risks of abortion. Overstating risks stigmatizes abortion, seeks to intimidate women and is unethical.