Screening to understand pregnancy preferences and offer referrals and treatment (SUPPORT): Results of a pilot quality improvement initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of integrating a pregnancy intention assessment screening algorithm into the electronic medical record (EMR) at a multispecialty clinic focused on the health of women and people assigned female at birth (AFAB). STUDY DESIGN: This pilot quality improvement project implemented a series of clinician reminders, new data fields in the patient record, and templated clinical notes to prompt care providers across specialties to ask AFAB reproductive age individuals about their desire for future pregnancies. Investigators created a novel screening question based on prior literature and expert input. Prospective observational study of one year of during-intervention EMR data on screening uptake and documentation, contraceptive use, and referrals to obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) for preconception care, contraceptive care, and related services. RESULTS: SUPPORT launched in February 2020 and was paused for 6 months due to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the intervention period through July 2021, 18% of patients for whom the automated screening reminder was activated had a documented pregnancy intention. Patients were screened in OBGYN, internal medicine, and eight subspecialty medical clinics. Among those screened, individuals who reported they did not desire pregnancy in the next year were more likely to use contraception (aOR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1, 3.1). Individuals that did desire pregnancy in the next year were more likely to be subsequently referred to OBGYN (aOR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2, 6.0). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the competing demands of the COVID-19 pandemic, the SUPPORT intervention was utilized at higher rates than prior similar interventions and across multiple disease specialties. IMPLICATIONS: Results from the SUPPORT pilot suggest that pregnancy intention screening of reproductive age AFAB individuals with an EMR-based screening prompt is feasible at scale.

Oral Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir Use and Clinical Outcomes in Pregnant Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of pregnant patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection by RNA polymerase chain reaction test or home test who were counseled about taking nirmatrelvir-ritonavir if they were within 5 days of symptom onset. Obstetric and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes were compared between patients who did and did not take the medication. Overall, 114 individuals took nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 323 did not. The cohorts were comparable, including high rates of vaccination in both groups. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was well-tolerated, with no patients discontinuing medication due to side effects. There were no intensive care unit admissions in either group. Most obstetric and medical outcomes were similar between those taking and not taking nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Patients taking nirmatrelvir-ritonavir had significantly higher rates of surgical site infection (3 [2.7%] vs 0 [0%], P =.02) and preeclampsia (11 [9.6%] vs 12 [3.7%], P =.02). Outcome event numbers were too small for multivariable modeling. These preliminary data may be reassuring to clinicians and patients who would like to use nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in pregnancy.

Feasibility and acceptability of a timeline follow-back method to assess opioid use, non-fatal overdose, and substance use disorder treatment.

BACKGROUND: Non-fatal overdoses are underreported and there is no accepted and feasible self-report research measure of non-fatal opioid overdose. Timeline follow-back (TLFB) calendar-based questionnaires assess self-reported risk behaviors. We assessed feasibility and acceptability of a new TLFB research measure for opioid use, non-fatal opioid overdose, and substance use disorder treatment among opioid overdose survivors. METHODS: For the Repeated-dose Behavioral Intervention to Reduce Opioid Overdose Trial (REBOOT) study among opioid overdose survivors, we developed a TLFB questionnaire to assess daily non-prescribed opioid use, opioid overdose, facility stays, medications/behavioral treatment for opioid use disorder, and COVID-19 history during the previous 120 days. Staff assessors administered TLFB at four-monthly visits over the 16-month study participation period. To measure feasibility, we estimated TLFB completion time using an electronic timestamp tool. To measure acceptability, we administered a satisfaction survey to 103 participants who completed REBOOT. RESULTS: Among 525 TLFB assessments conducted in 174 participants from January 2021-January 2023, opioid use was reported in 510 assessments, medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in 331 assessments, and ≥ 1 overdose in 107 assessments. Median TLFB completion time was 11 (IQR: 6-17) minutes for sections administered to all participants; detailed overdose questions administered to those reporting overdose took an additional 3 (IQR: 2-6) minutes. Report of ≥ 1 overdose and MOUD use were significantly associated with increased TLFB completion time. 88 % of participants reported that TLFB was very/somewhat acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Among opioid overdose survivors, REBOOT TLFB was a feasible and acceptable research measure, with similar completion time as other TLFB assessments of substance use.

Barriers to abortion provision in primary care in New England, 2019-2020: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess barriers to and facilitators of abortion provision among abortion-trained primary care providers. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted 21 qualitative in-depth interviews with 20 abortion-trained family physicians and one internal medicine physician in five New England states. We dual-coded interviews, using a consensus method to agree upon final coding schema. Through iterative dialogue, using an inductive content analysis approach, we synthesized the themes and identified patterns within each domain of inquiry. RESULTS: The most commonly reported barriers were a lack of organizational support, the Hyde Amendment, which prevents the use of federal funds for most abortion care, and the mifepristone Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, a federal regulation which prohibits routine mifepristone pharmacy dispensing. The logistical barriers created by these policies require cooperation from additional stakeholders, creating more opportunities for abortion stigma and moral opposition to arise. Other salient barriers included inter-specialty tension (particularly with obstetrician-gynecologists), perceived need for pre-abortion ultrasound, absence of a clinician support network, and lack of knowledge of existing resources for establishing abortion care in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Increased abortion provision in primary care is one of many necessary responses to the human rights crisis produced by the Dobbs decision. Eliminating the Hyde Amendment and ending federal regulations restricting pharmacy dispensing of mifepristone are key interventions to address barriers to primary care abortion provision. Building interspecialty partnerships between family medicine and OB/GYN and spreading awareness of the evidence-based ultrasound-as-needed protocol and other educational resources are also likely to increase primary care abortion access. IMPLICATIONS: By exploring barriers to and facilitators of primary care abortion provision, this study outlines a targeted approach to support increased access to abortions. In states with legal abortion post-Roe, it is important that motivated and trained primary care providers can offer abortions, rather than referring patients to overburdened specialty clinics.