Impact of the Dobbs decision on abortion services from a large tertiary center in Oregon.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the impact of the Dobbs vs Jackson decision on abortion volume and patient characteristics in Oregon, a state with no legal restrictions on abortion, at a single tertiary care hospital. METHODS: Electronic health records from patients who received an abortion at Oregon's largest tertiary health center were utilized comparing the year before and after Dobbs. RESULTS: Monthly average abortions increased from 57.8 pre-Dobbs to 77.1 post-Dobbs (p=0.001). This trend was associated with an increased proportion of out-of-state patients (14.3% vs 9.5%, p=0.004) presenting with gestational duration ≥ 26 weeks (23.6% vs 3.7% in-state, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The Dobbs decision resulted in increased utilization of hospital-based abortion care in a protective state, characterized by a greater prevalence of patients traveling from out-of-state and presenting at later gestational durations. These trends reflect the critical role of protective states in preserving access to abortion care.

Risk factors for and outcomes of ring expulsions with a 1-year contraceptive vaginal system.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration-approved segesterone acetate and ethinyl estradiol ring-shaped contraceptive vaginal system, known as Annovera (Sever Pharma Solutions/QPharma, Malmö, Sweden), was inserted and removed under a woman's control for a 21 day in and 7 day out regimen for up to 13 cycles of use. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the patterns of ring expulsion over time, to identify potential predictors of expulsion, and to evaluate the impact of expulsions on method discontinuation and pregnancy risk. STUDY DESIGN: Using data from 2064 participants who were enrolled in 2 multinational phase 3 clinical trials on the use of this contraceptive vaginal system, we examined data from participants' daily diaries for documentation of complete ring expulsion. We modeled the odds of reported expulsions over time with adjustment for background and demographic characteristics using mixed-effects logistic regression models with random intercepts. We compared the probability of continuation between those who did and those who did not report expulsions in the first cycle of use using survival analysis and hazards modeling. To determine if expulsions during the first cycle of use affected the risk for pregnancy, we calculated Pearl Indices. RESULTS: Most participants (75%) never experienced any expulsions during any cycle of use, and 91% to 97% did not experience an expulsion during any 1 cycle. The incidence of expulsion was highest in cycle 1 (9%). The odds of experiencing expulsions decreased by half in cycles 2 to 8 when compared with cycle 1 (0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.58), and in cycles 9 to 13, expulsions were about a third of that in cycle 1 (0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.41). Of those who did experience expulsions, most (62%-84%) experienced ≤2 expulsions per cycle. Participants from study sites in Latin America vs those in the United States had higher odds of not experiencing an expulsion (odds ratio, 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-2.63). Women with a higher education level had higher odds of experiencing an expulsion. Notably, parity, age, and body mass index were not associated with expulsion. Participants who experienced any expulsions in cycle 1 were more likely to discontinue use early (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.43) than participants who did not have an expulsion. The Pearl Index for participants who had expulsions during cycle 1 was 3.99 (95% confidence interval, 1.29-9.31), which was higher than that among participants who reported no expulsions (Pearl Index, 2.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.61-3.41), but the overlapping confidence intervals indicate that there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate an association between expulsions and pregnancy risk. CONCLUSION: Expulsions were infrequent overall, decreased with subsequent cycles of use, and were not associated with body mass index or parity. Early discontinuation of product use was higher among participants who experienced an expulsion during cycle 1. Although it is unclear whether pregnancy risk was associated with expulsions, early recognition of expulsions among users may identify those at higher risk for discontinuation and may highlight when enhanced anticipatory counselling and guidance may be advantageous.

The Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine Device as Emergency Contraception: Re-examining the Data.

Emergency contraception methods that also deliver ongoing contraception provide the most effective options for individuals hoping to prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse. Although the copper intrauterine device (IUD) provides the most effective option for emergency contraception because the device prevents pregnancy when placed before implantation and offers long-acting contraception, uptake by patients has been limited. Recently, the Society of Family Planning issued new guidance recommending the levonorgestrel IUD (LNG-IUD) as an emergency contraception option along with the copper IUD. Here, we review evidence related to this recommendation and conclude that the available data do not support use of the LNG-IUD for emergency contraception. We discuss the mechanisms of action of emergency contraception methods and how these concepts interface with the current political and social landscape of contraception and abortion care. We describe limitations of the existing evidence supporting use of the LNG-IUD as emergency contraception and highlight the critical research needed to establish the device as a highly effective method of emergency contraception.

Risk of thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 who are using hormonal contraception.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to significant mortality and morbidity, including a high incidence of related thrombotic events. There has been concern regarding hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic, as this is an independent risk factor for thrombosis, particularly with estrogen-containing formulations. However, higher estrogen levels may be protective against severe COVID-19 disease. Evidence for risks of hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic is sparse. We conducted a living systematic review that will be updated as new data emerge on the risk of thromboembolism with hormonal contraception use in patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in women with COVID-19. To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases other markers of COVID-19 severity including hospitalization in the intensive care unit, acute respiratory distress syndrome, intubation, and mortality. A secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, Global Health, and Scopus from inception on March 2023, and monitored the literature monthly. We updated the search strategies with new terms and added the database Global Index Medicus in lieu of LILACS. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all published and ongoing studies of patients with COVID-19 comparing outcomes of those on hormonal contraception versus those not on hormonal contraception. This included case series and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author extracted study data and this was checked by a second author. Two authors individually assessed risk of bias for the comparative studies using the ROBINS-I tool and a third helped reconcile differences. For the living systematic review, we will publish updates to our synthesis every six months. In the event that we identify a study with a more rigorous study design than the current included evidence prior to the planned six-month update, we will expedite the synthesis publication. MAIN RESULTS: We included three comparative NRSIs with 314,704 participants total and two case series describing 13 patients. The three NRSIs had serious to critical risk of bias in several domains and low study quality. Only one NRSI ascertained current use of contraceptives based on patient report; the other two used diagnostic codes within medical records to assess hormonal contraception use, but did not confirm current use nor indication for use. None of the NRSIs included thromboembolism as an outcome. Studies were not similar enough in terms of their outcomes, interventions, and study populations to combine with meta-analyses. We therefore narratively synthesized all included studies. Based on results from one NRSI, there may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of mortality for COVID-19 positive patients (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.40; 1 study, 18,892 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two NRSIs examined hospitalization rates for hormonal contraception users versus non-users. Based on results from one NRSI, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive combined hormonal contraception users may be slightly decreased compared with non-users for patients with BMI under 35 kg/m2 (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97; 1 study, 295,689 participants; very low-certainty evidence). According to results of the other NRSI assessing use of any type of hormonal contraception, there may be little to no effect on hospitalization rates for COVID-19 positive individuals (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44; 1 study, 123 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We included two case series because no comparative studies directly assessed thromboembolism as an outcome. In a case series of six pediatric COVID-19 positive patients with pulmonary embolism, one (older than 15 years of age) was using combined hormonal contraception. In a second case series of seven COVID-19 positive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, one was using oral contraceptives. One comparative study and one case series reported on intubation rates, but the evidence for both is very uncertain. In the comparative study of 123 COVID-19 positive patients (N = 44 using hormonal contraception and N = 79 not using hormonal contraception), no patients in either group required intubation. In the case series of seven individuals with cerebral venous thromboembolism, one oral contraceptive user and one non-user required intubation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no comparative studies assessing risk of thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients who use hormonal contraception, which was the primary objective of this review. Very little evidence exists examining the risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity for combined hormonal contraception users compared to non-users of hormonal contraception, and the evidence that does exist is of very low certainty. The odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive users of combined hormonal contraceptives may be slightly decreased compared with those of hormonal contraceptive non-users, but the evidence is very uncertain as this is based on one study restricted to patients with BMI under 35 kg/m2. There may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of intubation or mortality among COVID-19 positive patients, and little to no effect of using any type of hormonal contraception on odds of hospitalization and intubation for COVID-19 patients. We noted no large effect for risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity among hormonal contraception users. We specifically noted gaps in pertinent data collection regarding hormonal contraception use such as formulation, hormone doses, and duration or timing of contraceptive use. Differing estrogens may have different thrombogenic potential given differing potency, so it would be important to know if a formulation contained, for example, ethinyl estradiol versus estradiol valerate. Additionally, we downgraded several studies for risk of bias because information on the timing of contraceptive use relative to COVID-19 infection and method adherence were not ascertained. No studies reported indication for hormonal contraceptive use, which is important as individuals who use hormonal management for medical conditions like heavy menstrual bleeding might have different risk profiles compared to individuals using hormones for contraception. Future studies should focus on including pertinent confounders like age, obesity, history of prior venous thromboembolism, risk factors for venous thromboembolism, and recent pregnancy.

Risk of thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 who are using hormonal contraception: a Cochrane systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of thrombotic events. Individuals with COVID-19 using hormonal contraception could be at additional risk for thromboembolism, but evidence is sparse. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review on the risk of thromboembolism with hormonal contraception use in women aged 15-51 years with COVID-19. We searched multiple databases through March 2022, including all studies comparing outcomes of patients with COVID-19 using or not using hormonal contraception. We applied standard risk of bias tools to evaluate studies and GRADE methodology to assess certainty of evidence. Our primary outcomes were venous and arterial thromboembolism. Secondary outcomes included hospitalisation, acute respiratory distress syndrome, intubation, and mortality. RESULTS: Of 2119 studies screened, three comparative non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) and two case series met the inclusion criteria. All studies had serious to critical risk of bias and low study quality. Overall, there may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception (CHC) use on odds of mortality for COVID-19-positive patients (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.4). The odds of hospitalisation for COVID-19-positive CHC users may be slightly decreased compared with non-users for patients with body mass index <35 kg/m2 (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97). Use of any type of hormonal contraception may have little to no effect on hospitalisation rates for COVID-19-positive individuals (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44). CONCLUSIONS: Not enough evidence exists to draw conclusions regarding risk of thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 using hormonal contraception. Evidence suggests there may be little to no or slightly decreased odds of hospitalisation, and little to no effect on odds of mortality for hormonal contraception users versus non-users with COVID-19.

Progestin intrauterine devices versus copper intrauterine devices for emergency contraception.

BACKGROUND: The copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) is a highly effective method of contraception that can also be used for emergency contraception (EC). It is the most effective form of EC, and is more effective than other existing oral regimens also used for EC. The Cu-IUD provides the unique benefit of providing ongoing contraception after it is inserted for EC; however, uptake of this intervention has been limited. Progestin IUDs are a popular method of long-acting, reversible contraception. If these devices were also found to be effective for EC, they would provide a critical additional option for women. These IUDs could not only provide EC and ongoing contraception, but additional non-contraceptive benefits, including a reduction in menstrual bleeding, cancer prevention, and pain management. OBJECTIVES: To examine the safety and effectiveness of progestin-containing IUDs for emergency contraception, compared with copper-containing IUDs, or compared with dedicated oral hormonal methods. SEARCH METHODS: We considered all randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions that compared outcomes for individuals seeking a levonorgestrel IUD (LNG-IUD) for EC to a Cu-IUD or dedicated oral EC method. We considered full-text studies, conference abstracts, and unpublished data. We considered studies irrespective of their publication status and language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies comparing progestin IUDs with copper-containing IUDs, or oral EC methods for emergency contraception. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We systematically searched nine medical databases, two trials registries, and one gray literature site. We downloaded all titles and abstracts retrieved by electronic searching to a reference management database, and removed duplicates. Three review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text reports to determine studies eligible for inclusion. We followed standard Cochrane methodology to assess risk of bias, and analyze and interpret the data. We used GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included only one relevant study (711 women); a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial comparing LNG-IUDs to Cu-IUDs for EC, with a one-month follow-up. With one study, the evidence was very uncertain for the difference in pregnancy rates, failed insertion rates, expulsion rates, removal rates and the difference in the acceptability of the IUDs. There was also uncertain evidence suggesting the Cu-IUD may slightly increase rates of cramping and the LNG-IUD may slightly increase bleeding and spotting days.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review is limited in its ability to provide definitive evidence regarding the LNG-IUD's equivalence, superiority, or inferiority to the Cu-IUD for EC. Only one study was identified in the review, which had possible risks of bias related to randomization and rare outcomes. Additional studies are needed to provide definitive evidence related to the effectiveness of the LNG-IUD for EC.

Examining the association between short interpregnancy interval births and the type and timing of postpartum long acting reversible contraception.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the type (intrauterine device or implant) or timing (immediately postpartum vs interval) of postpartum long-acting reversible contraception was associated with a reduction in short interpregnancy interval births. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked Medicaid claims and birth certificate data from Oregon and South Carolina, 2010 to 2018. Our primary outcome was short interpregnancy interval, defined as repeat pregnancy within 18 months of the index delivery. We determined postpartum contraceptive method and timing of receipt. To assess the association of timing of long acting reversible contraception with short interpregnancy interval, we calculated adjusted probabilities from a logistic regression model incorporating covariate balanced propensity score weights, sociodemographic factors, and clustered at the woman-level. RESULTS: Our study sample included 121,422 births to 97,084 individuals who had more than 1 birth during the study period; 41% had a short interpregnancy interval. A majority of individuals had not received any contraception by 6 months postpartum (68.6%). Overall, 15,477 individuals used long acting reversible contraception postpartum, with the majority receiving interval rather than immediate postpartum long acting reversible contraception (92.9% vs 7.1%). In multivariable analyses, both immediate postpartum (23.0%, 95% CI: 20.5%-25.8%) and interval long acting reversible contraception (15.2%, 95% CI: 14.4%-16.1%) are associated with a lower probability of short interpregnancy interval than short acting methods (42.1%, 95% CI: 41.2%-43.0%). CONCLUSION: Compared to short-acting methods, receipt of both immediate postpartum and interval long-acting reversible contraception is associated with lower probabilities of a subsequent short interpregnancy interval. IMPLICATIONS: All long acting, reversible contraception, whether placed immediately postpartum or on an interval basis, was associated with a significantly lower probability of a short interpregnancy interval than short acting or no contraceptive method.

Pain medication requirements in patients with opioid use disorder at the time of surgical abortion: An exploratory study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess sedation medication dosage differences between patients with and without opioid use disorder at the time of surgical abortion. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study, identifying patients obtaining a surgical abortion in our ambulatory procedure unit between 2012 and 2017. We identified 64 patients with documented opioid use disorder at the time of their procedure and assigned 64 patients without opioid use disorder to a control cohort. We reviewed patient characteristics and calculated total doses of midazolam and fentanyl administered to patients. We used multivariate linear regression modelling to model the amount of medication administered to each group while controlling for confounders. RESULTS: The exposed and unexposed cohorts were similar in terms of baseline characteristics except for race. The cohort of patients with opioid use disorder was predominantly White (n = 55, 86%) and completely English speaking (n = 64, 100%), whereas the control cohort was majority Black (n = 39, 61%) and mostly English speaking (n = 44, 69%) On average, patients with opioid use disorder received 22 mcg more fentanyl (110 mcg vs 88 mcg, p < 0.001) and 0.4 mg more midazolam (2.7 mg vs 2.3 mg, p = 0.001) than patients without opioid use disorder. After adjusting for prior abortions, parity, English speaking status, psychiatric conditions, and education, we found smaller differences in both fentanyl (15 mcg, 95% CI 1.7, 28.2 mg) and midazolam dosages (0.3 mg, 95% CI -0.01, 0.6) between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with and without opioid use disorder received similar doses of midazolam and fentanyl for moderate sedation for surgical abortion. IMPLICATIONS: This study suggests that standard medication titration protocols utilized with moderate sedation for surgical abortions need not be changed for patients with opioid use disorder. Moderate sedation can be a helpful option for pain control for this vulnerable population.

How do women interpret abortion information they find online?

OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess how women interpret the information they find online about the overall safety and risk of infertility associated with abortion and cesarean delivery (CD). METHODS: We conducted an exploratory, prospective study tracking the internet searches of 100 reproductive-aged individuals who identify as women. We directed participants to search for information about either (1) whether surgical abortion or CD is safe or (2) the risk of infertility following surgical abortion or CD. Our data collection had 3 phases: baseline survey, directed internet search, and a postsearch survey. We analyzed participants' pre- and postsurvey responses using bivariate tests and analyzed within-subject changes. We evaluated the sites they visited based on expert ratings of site content based on trustworthiness and slant. RESULTS: Women perceived abortion as safer and less likely to cause infertility after their web searches than before (70% perceived abortion in the United States as very/completely safe presearch vs 92% postsearch; p < 0.02). Women's perceptions about CD did not change. Participants sought information from web pages that experts largely deemed trustworthy and lacking in slant. CONCLUSIONS: Women's perceptions about abortion safety and risk can be influenced by information they find online; perceptions about CD safety and risk may be less influenced by online information. IMPLICATIONS: Disseminating high quality, user-friendly abortion information on highly ranked and easily findable websites can help women find evidence-based information and influence knowledge about abortion.

Pharmacokinetics of Hormonal Contraception in Individuals with Obesity: a Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Obesity continues to affect many women globally. In the USA, almost 40% of all women are obese and many of these women use hormonal contraception for pregnancy prevention. How well hormonal contraceptive works for these individuals has been an area of ongoing research. Pharmacokinetics (PK), the study of drug passage through the body, can shed light on how differences in physiology between obese and non-obese populations can impact drug disposition and subsequent efficacy. This review aims to reflect on these types of studies and empower clinicians with information to help tackle the challenges of the obesity epidemic and help them provide the best contraceptive options to their patients. Here, we present the basics of the mechanisms of action of hormonal contraception, fundamental pharmacokinetic principles, and the latest research into pharmacokinetics, obesity, and hormonal contraception. RECENT FINDINGS: New studies focused on the PK of hormonal contraception in women with obesity have shown that while there are distinct differences in how steroid hormones are processed in women with different body mass indices, contraceptive efficacy is likely the same. This is replicated in studies involving a variety of hormonal contraceptive methods. SUMMARY: PK studies allow for a detailed analysis of steroid hormone processing in individuals with obesity. Observing PK parameters at each stage of the passage of these hormones through the body, researchers have drilled down on physiologic differences that accompany obesity. In reviewing these PK parameter differences, however, it appears that while processes are different, the end result of pregnancy prevention is likely not compromised in the setting of obesity. Emergency contraception, which functions by a different mechanism from that of continuous hormonal contraception, is the one area in which obesity has been demonstrated to impact efficacy.

Gynecologic Outcomes After Hysteroscopic and Laparoscopic Sterilization Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of gynecologic morbidity after laparoscopic and hysteroscopic sterilization. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used a commercial claims administrative database, 2007-2013, to compare rates of pregnancy, menstrual dysfunction, pelvic pain, hysteroscopic surgery, and intra-abdominal gynecologic surgery after laparoscopic and hysteroscopic sterilization. Women with 12 or more continuous months of data before and after their index procedure were included. Pregnancy rates after laparoscopic and hysteroscopic sterilization were compared for the entire population of women who underwent hysteroscopic sterilization and the subset who had completed postprocedure hysterosalpingograms. Cox proportional hazard models were calculated controlling for age, comorbidities, U.S. geographic region, metropolitan statistical area designation, and insurance type. RESULTS: A total of 42,391 women underwent laparoscopic and 27,724 underwent hysteroscopic sterilization. The pregnancy rate was higher after hysteroscopic than laparoscopic sterilization (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.33; 2.4% compared with 2.0% risk of pregnancy at 2 years). Only 66.1% (n=18,318) of women who underwent hysteroscopic sterilization received a hysterosalpingogram. This group had similar pregnancy rates as those who underwent laparoscopic sterilization (adjusted HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80-1.02; 1.8% compared with 2.0% at 2 years). After undergoing hysteroscopic sterilization, more women were diagnosed with menstrual dysfunction (adjusted HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.20-1.27; 26.8% compared with 22.3% at 2 years), and more women underwent hysteroscopic surgeries (adjusted HR 2.05, 95% CI 1.96-2.14; 13.8% compared with 6.4% at 2 years), but fewer women were diagnosed with pelvic pain (adjusted HR 0.83, P<.001; 21.0% compared with 25.6% at 2 years) and fewer women underwent intra-abdominal gynecologic surgeries (adjusted HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90-0.99; 7.7% compared with 8.1% at 2 years), including hysterectomy (adjusted HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.61-0.69; 10.9% compared with 14.3% at 5 years). CONCLUSION: Hysteroscopic sterilization may be associated with a higher rate of pregnancy, more menstrual dysfunction, more hysteroscopic surgeries, less pelvic pain, and fewer intra-abdominal gynecologic surgeries than laparoscopic sterilization. Pregnancy rates appear to be similar for women who completed their postprocedure hysterosalpingogram, but only 66% of women did so.

Psychosocial interventions for pregnant women in outpatient illicit drug treatment programs compared to other interventions.

BACKGROUND: Illicit drug use in pregnancy is a complex social and public health problem. The consequences of drug use in pregnancy are high for both the woman and her child. Therefore, it is important to develop and evaluate effective treatments. There is evidence for the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions in drug treatment but it is unclear whether they are effective in pregnant women. This is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions in pregnant women enrolled in illicit drug treatment programmes on birth and neonatal outcomes, on attendance and retention in treatment, as well as on maternal and neonatal drug abstinence. In short, do psychosocial interventions translate into less illicit drug use, greater abstinence, better birth outcomes, or greater clinic attendance? SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the original literature search in May 2006 and performed the search update up to January 2015. For both review stages (original and update), we searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Trial's register (May 2006 and January 2015); the Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 1); PubMed (1996 to January 2015); EMBASE (1996 to January 2015); and CINAHL (1982 to January 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing any psychosocial intervention vs. a control intervention that could include pharmacological treatment, such as methadone maintenance, a different psychosocial intervention, counselling, prenatal care, STD counselling and testing, transportation, or childcare. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We performed analyses based on three comparisons: any psychosocial intervention vs. control, contingency management (CM) interventions vs. control, and motivational interviewing based (MIB) interventions vs. MAIN RESULTS: In total, we included 14 studies with 1298 participants: nine studies (704 participants) compared CM vs. control, and five studies (594 participants) compared MIB interventions vs. CONTROL: We did not find any studies that assessed other types of psychosocial interventions. For the most part, it was unclear if included studies adequately controlled for biases within their studies as such information was not often reported. We assessed risk of bias in the included studies relating to participant selection, allocation concealment, personnel and outcome assessor blinding, and attrition.The included trials rarely captured maternal and neonatal outcomes. For studies that did measure such outcomes, no difference was observed in pre-term birth rates (RR 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 1.51; three trials, 264 participants, moderate quality evidence), maternal toxicity at delivery (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.65; two trials, 217 participants, moderate quality evidence), or low birth weight (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.43; one trial, 160 participants, moderate quality evidence). However, the results did show that neonates remained in hospital for fewer days after delivery in CM intervention groups (RR -1.27, 95% CI -2.52 to -0.03; two trials, 103 participants, moderate quality evidence). There were no differences observed at the end of studies in retention or abstinence (as assessed by positive drug test at the end of treatment) in any psychosocial intervention group compared to control (Retention: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06, nine trials, 743 participants, low quality evidence; and Abstinence: RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.73, three trials, 367 participants, low quality evidence). These results held for both CM and MIB combined. Overall, the quality of the evidence was low to moderate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The present evidence suggests that there is no difference in treatment outcomes to address drug use in pregnant women with use of psychosocial interventions, when taken in the presence of other comprehensive care options. However, few studies evaluated obstetrical or neonatal outcomes and rarely did so in a systematic way, making it difficult to assess the effect of psychosocial interventions on these clinically important outcomes. It is important to develop a better evidence base to evaluate psychosocial modalities of treatment in this important population.

Integrating screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) into an abortion clinic: an exploratory study of acceptability.

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is an effective means of identifying problematic substance use. We evaluated the acceptability of SBIRT in an abortion clinic via an anonymous survey of 100 participants. Clients were comfortable being asked about their substance use, receiving counseling, and treatment referral (mean Likert 1.1, 1.5, and 1.6, respectively) and were only minimally embarrassed when asked about substance use (mean Likert 3.6). These findings suggest that integrating SBIRT into an abortion clinic may be feasible. However, future studies are needed to assess the efficacy of abortion clinic SBIRT in reducing risky substance use.

Screening, testing, and reporting for drug and alcohol use on labor and delivery: a survey of Maryland birthing hospitals.

Recent amendments to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act tie the receipt of federal block grants to mandatory reporting of substance-exposed newborns. To determine rates of screening, testing, and reporting of drug and alcohol use at the time of delivery, we administered a telephone survey of nursing managers and perinatal social workers at Maryland birthing hospitals. Of the 34 hospitals, 31 responded (response rate 91%). Although 97% of hospitals reported universal screening, only 6% used a validated instrument. Testing was reported by 94% with 45% reporting universal maternal testing and 7% universal newborn testing. Only 32% reported obtaining maternal consent prior to testing. There is significant heterogeneity in screening and testing for substance use in birthing hospitals. Given federal reporting mandates, state-level practices need to be standardized.