Abortion Training in Family Medicine Residency Programs: A National Survey of Program Directors 5 Months After the Dobbs Decision.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Routine abortion training during family medicine (FM) residency leads to higher rates of postresidency provision; increased availability of abortion care in the FM setting could greatly improve access. Especially in the post-Dobbs context, understanding the landscape of abortion training in US family medicine residency programs (FMRPs) is critical. METHODS: We invited all directors of US FMRPs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education to complete a larger omnibus online survey that included questions on abortion training. We compiled descriptive statistics and conducted χ2 tests and multivariate regression analyses to detect associations with abortion training. RESULTS: The response rate was 42% (N=286). Nineteen percent of programs had routine medication abortion (MAB) training and 10% had routine aspiration training. In addition, 58% of programs offered elective MAB training and 52% offered elective aspiration training. In multivariate regression, the presence of abortion training was associated with a program having 31 or more residents, being in a state with protected abortion access, not having a Catholic affiliation, and having a program director who believed abortion training should be routine in FMRPs. CONCLUSIONS: While more than half of responding FMRPs reported some abortion training, much of it was elective, and 40% of programs lacked abortion training completely. Although abortion training is severely limited or prohibited in states with abortion bans, more training opportunities in the states where abortion is possible could increase access to abortion within primary care.

Transparency around abortion training on obstetrics and gynecology residency program websites.

OBJECTIVES: The availability of family planning and abortion training in residency is a concern for applicants, particularly following the overturning of Roe v Wade. We aimed to characterize public information on abortion training in obstetrics and gynecology residency programs in states with and without abortion bans. STUDY DESIGN: We abstracted residency program data using a publicly available database of obstetrics and gynecology residency programs. We performed a systematic internet search of each program's website to identify information on abortion training. We defined states with abortion bans as those with total or near-total bans as of November 2022. Using Stata SE 16, we used Student t tests and Fisher exact tests to characterize differences between programs with public abortion training information and those without. RESULTS: Of 293 obstetrics and gynecology residency programs, 197 (67.2%) included online information regarding abortion training. Of 64 programs in states with abortion bans, 34 (53%) had public information regarding abortion training, compared to 163 (71%) of the 229 programs in states with legal abortion. Programs with publicly available abortion training information were more likely to be academic (49.8% vs 26%, p < 0.001) and have a higher percentage of female residents (86.6% vs 82.9%, p = 0.003). Programs in states with legal abortion were more likely to use words like "abortion" (36.2% vs 17.7%, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Only two-thirds of obstetrics and gynecology residency programs publicize abortion training information. Almost half of all programs in states with abortion bans do not share this information, revealing a need for improved transparency to better inform residency applicant decision-making. IMPLICATIONS: During the 2022-2023 academic cycle, one-third of obstetrics and gynecology residency programs did not include information about family planning or abortion training online. In states with abortion bans, this number increased to almost one-half. These findings serve as a call to action for programs to clarify their commitment to abortion training.

Abortion education: What are future physicians learning in medical school?

OBJECTIVES: The last nationwide evaluation of abortion education in undergraduate medical schools was conducted by Espey et al. more than 15 years ago. To better understand what medical schools are teaching medical students about abortion care, we conducted a brief assessment of abortion education and training at U.S. medical schools. STUDY DESIGN: In April 2019, the study team emailed a three-item survey to the obstetrics and gynecology clerkship directors at Association of American Medical Colleges-accredited U.S. allopathic medical schools (n = 143). The multiple-choice survey assessed the availability and type of reproductive health education students had during their preclinical and clinical experiences. RESULTS: Ninety-one (64%) medical schools responded. Fifty-four (59%) schools reported abortion education as part of their preclinical curriculum, with 26 (29%) dedicating at least one lecture to abortion education. Sixty-seven (74%) institutions provided a clinical abortion experience for students, with 24 (26%) indicating students had to arrange participation on their own. Nine programs (10%) reported offering no formal abortion education. CONCLUSIONS: While the availability of abortion education has increased since the last nationwide survey in 2005, discrepancies in the education offered persist, and many medical students remain without access to this training. IMPLICATIONS: Although abortion plays an essential role in women's health services, discrepancies in training opportunities limit abortion education in U.S. medical schools. Gaps in the education of medical students may have downstream effects on the availability of doctors who are trained in providing medically-safe abortions.

Abortion training in U.S. obstetrics and gynecology residency programs in a post-Dobbs era.

OBJECTIVES: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires all obstetrics and gynecology residents have access to abortion training. The impact of Dobbs on training remains unknown. We aimed to describe residency programs affected by abortion bans and those lacking abortion training despite permissive state policies. We considered demographic data to understand the impacts on residents under-represented in medicine. STUDY DESIGN: We used residency databases and websites to abstract data. We identified programs offering routine abortion training as either those with Ryan Programs or those with website or email acknowledgment of training. We defined states with abortion bans as those with either complete or 6-week bans as of December 2022. We used χ2 and Student's t tests in descriptive analyses and performed a logistic regression to adjust for demographic and program-specific variables. RESULTS: Of 286 residency programs included, 140 (49%) offered routine abortion training prior to Dobbs. As of December 2022, 19 of these (14%) had lost the ability to provide routine in-state abortion training. Of 223 residency programs in states with legal abortion, 102 (46%) programs lacked routine abortion training. These sites were more likely to be community or community-university programs, with graduates more likely to practice as generalists. Resident race/ethnicity did not differ between residents in states with legal abortion vs abortion bans. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of obstetrics and gynecology residency programs in states with legal abortion do not appear to provide routine abortion training. Further work is needed to understand this paucity of training and maximize access in legislatively permissible environments. IMPLICATIONS: Following Dobbs, 14% of residency programs lost in-state abortion training. Notably, in states with legal abortion, 46% of programs lack routine abortion training despite permissive legislation. This presents a window of opportunity for expansion of abortion training, particularly at community and community-university hybrid residency sites.

Barriers to abortion provision: A qualitative study among medical students and gynecologists in Berlin, Germany.

OBJECTIVES: While abortion is a common medical procedure in Germany, the number of abortion-providing facilities declined by 46% between 2003 and 2022. As existing data do not paint a complete picture of the factors influencing this decline, an understanding into the perspectives of health care professionals (HCPs) is necessary. We set out to examine attitudes of HCPs in Berlin, Germany toward different aspects of abortion to identify barriers that might prevent them from providing abortions. STUDY DESIGN: We used a qualitative research design consisting of in-depth semistructured one-on-one interviews with 14 medical students and four gynecologists. We transcribed interviews verbatim and conducted qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Many interviewees perceived abortion as a taboo and legally ambiguous intervention. They feared stigmatization when talking about or providing abortions, especially by fellow students or religious family members. Few participants objected to abortion provision on religious grounds. Some medical students underestimated the safety of abortion and overestimated the potential for side effects and complications. Medical students obtained their knowledge about abortion from various sources, such as media, religious school education, or personal experience with abortion; the topic was rarely discussed in their medical education. To decide whether to provide abortions later, many students wished for detailed abortion teaching during medical school and residency. CONCLUSIONS: Fear of stigmatization, misconceptions on abortion, and religious beliefs reduced HCPs' willingness to perform abortions. Abortion education was widely valued by medical students and could address some of the barriers to abortion provision we found in this study. IMPLICATIONS: Universities and teaching hospitals should systematically teach about abortion to counteract misinformation and help normalize abortions among HCPs. Moreover, political decision-makers should take measures in order to destigmatize abortion, like an abortion regulation outside the Criminal Code in line with international public health recommendations.

"It's important to foster open discussion about the topic": development, implementation, and evaluation of an ethics of abortion independent learning module for second year medical students.

PURPOSE: Despite the frequency of abortions, one-third of medical schools in the US and Canada did not include coverage of that topic, according to a survey conducted in 2002-2005. The purpose of this project was to develop, implement, and evaluate a module for second year medical students related to the ethics of abortion. METHODS: The module was designed as Independent Learning Time (ILT). The stated purpose was for students to consider some of the recent debate in the ethics literature related to conscientious objection and abortion and how personal views may influence future practice. The ILT included readings and Power Points to view. Students were asked to write a one-page reflection on one of three writing prompts. RESULTS: The most commonly selected writing prompt in three classes was on personal values in relation to abortion (56.5%), followed by information about nearest provider of reproductive services to rural preceptor site (34.7%), followed by conscientious objection (23.3%). We received many positive comments about the ILT, including: "First, I would like to acknowledge my gratitude for this assignment and its subject. I believe it is very important that future physicians learn the entirety of women's reproductive health care, including abortion and contraception, but unfortunately this is not always the case in medical training". CONCLUSIONS: There has been an extremely positive response to the ILT. With the exception of the prompt specific to our regional campus mission that includes rural preceptorships during the preclinical years, this module could be implementable at other medical schools.

The association between abortion restrictions and patient-centered care for early pregnancy loss at US obstetrics-gynecology residency programs.

BACKGROUND: Early pregnancy loss is a common medical problem, and the recommended treatments overlap with those used for induced abortions. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends the incorporation of clinical and patient factors when applying conservative published imaging guidelines to determine the timing of intervention for early pregnancy loss. However, in places where abortion is heavily regulated, clinicians who manage early pregnancy loss may cautiously rely on the strictest criteria to differentiate between early pregnancy loss and a potentially viable pregnancy. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also notes that specific treatment modalities that are frequently used to induce abortion, including the use of mifepristone in medical therapy and surgical aspiration in an office setting, are cost-effective and beneficial for patients with early pregnancy loss. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine how US-based obstetrics and gynecology residency training institutions adhere to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations for early pregnancy loss management, including the timing and types of interventions, and to evaluate the relationship with institutional and state abortion restrictions. STUDY DESIGN: From November 2021 to January 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional study of all 296 US-based obstetrics and gynecology residency programs by emailing them and requesting that a faculty member complete a survey about early pregnancy loss practices at their institution. We asked about location of diagnosis, use of imaging guidelines before offering intervention, treatment options available at their institution, and program and personal characteristics. We used chi-square tests and logistic regressions to compare the availability of early pregnancy loss care based on institutional indication-based abortion restrictions and state legislative hostility to abortion care. RESULTS: Of the 149 programs that responded (50.3% response rate), 74 (49.7%) reported that they did not offer any intervention for suspected early pregnancy loss unless rigid imaging criteria were met, whereas the remaining 75 (50.3%) programs reported that they incorporated imaging guidelines with other factors. In an unadjusted analysis, programs were less likely to incorporate other factors with imaging criteria if they were in a state with legislative policies that were hostile toward abortion (33% vs 79%; P<.001) or if the institution restricted abortion by indication (27% vs 88%; P<.001). Mifepristone was used less often in programs located in hostile states (32% vs 75%; P<.001) or in institutions with abortion restrictions (25% vs 86%; P<.001). Similarly, office-based suction aspiration use was lower in hostile states (48% vs 68%; P=.014) and in institutions with restrictions (40% vs 81%; P<.001). After controlling for program characteristics, including state policies and affiliation with family planning training programs or religious entities, institutional abortion restrictions were the only significant predictor of rigid reliance on imaging guidelines (odds ratio, 12.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-47.9). CONCLUSION: In training institutions that restrict access to induced abortion based on indication for care, residency programs are less likely to holistically incorporate clinical evidence and patient priorities in determining when to intervene in early pregnancy loss as recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Programs in restrictive institutional and state environments are also less likely to offer the full range of early pregnancy loss treatment options. With state abortion bans proliferating nationwide, evidence-based education and patient-centered care for early pregnancy loss may also be hindered.

Abortion Provision Among Family Physicians Underrepresented in Medicine.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Workforce diversity in primary care is critical for improved health outcomes and mitigation of inequities. However, little is known about the racial and ethnic identities, training histories, and practice patterns of family physicians who provide abortions. METHODS: Family physicians who graduated from residency programs with routine abortion training from 2015 through 2018 completed an anonymous electronic cross-sectional survey. We measured abortion training, intentions to provide abortion, and practice patterns, and examined differences between underrepresented in medicine (URM) and non-URM physicians using χ2 tests and binary logistic regression. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-eight respondents completed the survey (39% response rate), 17% of whom were URM. Similar percentages of URM and non-URM respondents had abortion training and had intended to provide abortions. However, fewer URMs reported providing procedural abortion in their postresidency practice (6% vs 19%, P=.03) and providing abortion in the past year (6% vs 20%, P=.023). In adjusted analyses, URMs were less likely to have provided abortions after residency (OR=.383, P=.03) and in the past year (OR=.217, P=.02) compared to non-URMs. Of the 16 noted barriers to provision, few differences were evident between groups on the indicators measured. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in postresidency abortion provision existed between URM and non-URM family physicians despite similar training and intentions to provide. Examined barriers do not explain these differences. Further research on the unique experiences of URM physicians in abortion care is needed to then consider which strategies for building a more diverse workforce should be employed.

Abortion stigma, abortion exceptionalism, and medical curricula.

ABSTRACTWhile it is well established that medical student learning about abortion is inadequate and lacks systemisation, there is little research on why this might be the case. This exploratory study draws on a survey sent to 438 medical educators at Australia's 21 accredited medical schools through March-May 2021. Forty-eight educators responded to the survey. In this article, I examine their responses alongside policy and research on medical education to consider how curricula are determined. I conceptualise abortion exceptionalism - the singling out of abortion from other areas of medicine on the grounds that it is special, different, or more complex or risky than is empirically justified - as a mode of 'stigma-in-action', arguing that medical curricula are powerful sites for its reproduction and undoing.

Knowledge, Moral Attitude, and Practice of Nursing Students Toward Abortion.

In 2021, Thailand decriminalized abortions to allow for legal abortions on request up to 12 weeks' gestation and conditionally up to 20 weeks' gestation, or in the case of sexual assault, maternal mental or physical harm, or fetal abnormality. We intend to say that healthcare practitioners' positive attitudes toward abortion will destigmatize abortion for both themselves and their patients. We explored the knowledge, attitudes, and intended practices of nursing students toward safe abortion practices in light of the recent law reform. This was a cross-sectional study using a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of 4 parts: a demographic information questionnaire; and measures to assess their knowledge, moral attitudes, and intended practice regarding safe abortion care. Questionnaires were sent to 206 nursing students who had completed the Midwifery and Maternal-Newborn Nursing rotation in Bangkok, Thailand. The survey response rate was 90.8%. Mean (standard deviation) knowledge score was 6.72 (1.86) out of 10. Buddhist students were more likely to have a positive attitude toward abortions. Most students intended to practice safe abortions in pregnancies that affect maternal physical or mental health, or in pregnancies that resulted from unlawful sexual contact. Students were more ambivalent toward abortion practices for socioeconomic reasons. Better knowledge of abortion legislation was associated with a more positive attitude toward abortions and safe abortion practice intention. Approximately 1 year after the abortion law reform in Thailand, nursing students had incomplete knowledge of the amendment. Most students were inclined to provide abortion care services for certain conditions.

Barriers and enablers to nurse practitioner implementation of medication abortion in Canada: A qualitative study.

In this study we explored nurse practitioner-provided medication abortion in Canada and identified barriers and enablers to uptake and implementation. Between 2020-2021, we conducted 43 semi-structured interviews with 20 healthcare stakeholders and 23 nurse practitioners who both provided and did not provide medication abortion. Data were analyzed using interpretive description. We identified five overarching themes: 1) Access and use of ultrasound for gestational dating; 2) Advertising and anonymity of services; 3) Abortion as specialized or primary care; 4) Location and proximity to services; and 5) Education, mentorship, and peer support. Under certain conditions, ultrasound is not required for medication abortion, supporting nurse practitioner provision in the absence of access to this technology. Nurse practitioners felt a conflict between wanting to advertise their abortion services while also protecting their anonymity and that of their patients. Some nurse practitioners perceived medication abortion to be a low-resource, easy-to-provide service, while some not providing medication abortion continued to refer patients to specialized clinics. Some participants in rural areas felt unable to provide this service because they were too far from emergency services in the event of complications. Most nurse practitioners did not have any training in abortion care during their education and desired the support of a mentor experienced in abortion provision. Addressing factors that influence nurse practitioner provision of medication abortion will help to broaden access. Nurse practitioners are well-suited to provide medication abortion care but face multiple ongoing barriers to provision. We recommend the integration of medication abortion training into nurse practitioner education. Further, widespread communication from nursing organizations could inform nurse practitioners that medication abortion is within their scope of practice and facilitate public outreach campaigns to inform the public that this service exists and can be provided by nurse practitioners.

The ongoing crisis of abortion care education and training in the United States.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The Dobbs vs Jackson case (Dobbs) decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in 2022 rescinded the constitutional right to abortion care, resulting in immediate state bans and severe restrictions on abortion care in almost half of the states at the time of submission. This article reviews the current state of abortion education and training as well as available curricula and programmes to support continued training. RECENT FINDINGS: Prior to Dobbs, a national residency-level training programme, the Ryan Residency Training Program, has helped expand abortion care training in residency programs nationally, yet there remained many barriers to incorporating this training into practice, including practice and hospital restrictions. New state restrictions now additionally constrain almost half of all the Ob-Gyn residency programmes. Medical students benefit from education on options counselling and values exploration. SUMMARY: Abortion care education and training is in crisis. Almost half of the Ob-Gyn residents are training in states that have banned or severely restricted abortion care. This threatens to create a workforce without critical early pregnancy management knowledge and skills. Residents are more likely to provide abortion care when they have scheduled routine training. Medical students can apply options counselling and values exploration knowledge broadly. Online education resources provide some patchwork solutions to continue abortion care education and training in this heavily restrictive landscape.

Projected Implications of Overturning Roe v Wade on Abortion Training in U.S. Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Programs.

In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision on Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization, a direct challenge to Roe v Wade. A detailed policy analysis by the Guttmacher Institute projects that, if Roe v Wade is overturned, 21 states are certain to ban abortion and five states are likely to ban abortion. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires access to abortion training for all obstetrics and gynecology residency programs. We performed a comprehensive study of all accredited U.S. obstetrics and gynecology residency programs to assess how many of these programs and trainees are currently located in states projected to ban abortion if Roe v Wade is overturned. We found that, of 286 accredited obstetrics and gynecology residency programs with current residents, 128 (44.8%) are in states certain or likely to ban abortion if Roe v Wade is overturned. Therefore, of 6,007 current obstetrics and gynecology residents, 2,638 (43.9%) are certain or likely to lack access to in-state abortion training. Preparation for the reversal of Roe v Wade should include not only a recognition of the negative effects on patient access to abortion care in affected states, but also of the dramatic implications for obstetrics and gynecology residency training.

Work-arounds at faith-based obstetrics and gynecology residency programs to accomplish family planning training.

OBJECTIVE: To explore work-arounds at faith-based obstetrics and gynecology residency programs to accomplish family planning training. STUDY DESIGN: We invited educational stakeholders to participate in telephone interviews that elicited strategies for overcoming barriers to family planning training in religious settings. RESULTS: Eighteen out of 30 invited programs leaders participated. Work-arounds included reliance on non-contraceptive indications for contraception and permanent contraception provision, obtaining ethics committee approvals for service provision, and developing partnerships with offsite centers for training. CONCLUSION: Ob-gyn residency programs affiliated with religious hospitals utilize various work-arounds for family planning training and patient care. These findings may inform other programs that face similar barriers, secondary to institutional or governmental restrictions.

"No One Does This for the Money or Lifestyle": Abortion Providers' Perspectives on Factors Affecting Workforce Recruitment and Retention in the Southern United States.

OBJECTIVES: Movements to stem abortion accessibility and provision are underway across the southern United States. Preserving access to safe abortion requires a steady maternal health workforce. Targeted laws and limiting environments have contributed to a regional dearth of abortion providers. This study evaluates the consequences of restrictive environments for the abortion workforce to inform strategies to reduce the provider shortage in the South. METHODS: We recruited twelve physicians using purposive sampling and interviewed them on their motivations and experiences practicing in the South. We employed grounded theory analysis to translate their perspectives into recommendations for provider recruitment and retention. RESULTS: Abortion providers identified challenges relating to restrictive legislation, institutional separation of abortion from other medical services, training unavailability, safety concerns, identity struggles, and marginalization within their profession. This contributed to providers widely experiencing stigma and isolation within their work and life environments. Their motivations for practicing in the South despite these challenges included wanting to be impactful in areas of high need, combating health access disparites, and having personal ties to the region. Providers' suggested increasing regional networking and training opportunities, creating an information clearinghouse, and offering additional compensation to better support their work. We conceptualized these findings into a framework detailing the challenges, impacts and opportunities for abortion provision in the southern United States. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Our recommendations for provider recruitment and retention include cooperation between professional organizations, training programs, and healthcare institutions to create opportunities for training and networking and encourage abortion-supportive organizational and policy environments.

Professionalism in Family Planning Care Workshop.

INTRODUCTION: When clinicians feel negative emotions toward patients, providinge patient-centered care can be difficult. This can occur in family planning scenarios, such as when a provider is uncomfortable with a patient choosing abortion. The Professionalism in Family Planning Care Workshop (PFPCW), framed around professionalism values, used guided reflection to foster self-awareness and empathy in order to teach future providers to provide patient-centered care. METHODS: In the PFPCW, learners discussed challenging patient interactions and family planning scenarios to develop self-awareness and identify strategies for maintaining therapeutic relationships with patients when they experience negative feelings toward them. We implemented the workshop across the United States and Canada and collected pre- and postsurvey data to evaluate program outcomes at Kirkpatrick evaluation levels of participant reaction and effects on learners' attitudes. RESULTS: A total of 403 participants participated in 27 workshops in which pre- and postworkshop surveys (70% and 46% response rates, respectively) were administered. Sixty-five percent of the participants were residents, and 36% had previously participated in a similar workshop. The majority (92%) rated the PFPCWs as worthwhile. Participants valued the discussion and self-reflection components. Afterward, 23% reported that their attitudes toward caring for people with unintended pregnancy changed to feeling more comfortable. Participants said they would employ self-reflection and empathy in future challenging interactions. DISCUSSION: In this pilot implementation study, our workshop provided learners with strategies for patient-centered care in challenging family planning patient interactions. We are currently modifying the workshop and evaluation program based on feedback.