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.

Impact of Teaching Sexual Health Education on Medical Students.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Physician discomfort, embarrassment, and perceived lack of time and/or training all play a role in preventing physicians from discussing sexual health with patients. Past research shows this discomfort begins in medical school. We aimed to determine whether teaching sexual health education increases medical students' self-efficacy in discussing sexual health topics with adolescents. METHODS: We emailed a retrospective pre/postsurvey to all medical students who taught sexual health education in a local middle school through Sex Ed by Brown Med (N=61). RESULTS: Participation in Sex Ed by Brown Med improves self-efficacy in discussing nine sexual health topics and in performing nine advanced interviewing skills relevant to sexual health in a retrospective analysis using self-reported data. CONCLUSIONS: Programs similar to Sex Ed by Brown Med may be useful in improving medical students' ability to adequately care for their patients' sexual health by making future clinicians more comfortable when discussing the important topic of sexuality, and concurrently providing evidence-based comprehensive sexual health education to middle school students. Further research is needed to determine the impact of our program (and similar programs) before disseminating this model of sexual education.

Interpretation of the tuberculin skin test reaction by pediatric providers.

BACKGROUND: The tuberculin (TB) skin test is widely used, but it is not easy to read. There are few data on how well pediatric care providers interpret the TB skin test or on the success of various methods used to read the skin test reaction. OBJECTIVE: To determine the ability of pediatric care providers to correctly read a positive TB skin test reaction and to identify the most successful method of measuring a TB skin test reaction. METHODS: Twenty nurses, 16 staff pediatricians, 13 residents and 8 medical students who were working in a large pediatrics clinic were asked to read a 15-mm TB skin test reaction of a known converter. The study participants read the skin test using any technique they wished. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of providers who read the TB skin test as > or = 10 mm (considered a correct reading). RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent (44 of 57) of the participants interpreted the TB skin test as > or = 10 mm, but 18% (10 of 57) of them read the skin test as negative (< or = 5 mm). The participants used a variety of interpretation techniques with 18 using the ballpoint pen technique. Participants who used the pen technique were significantly more likely to read the skin test as > or = 10 mm compared with those who used other methods (94% vs. 69%; P = 0.04). Pen technique users were also significantly less likely to measure the reaction as < or = 5 mm (0% vs. 26%; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Many providers, regardless of professional training and experience, read a 15-mm TB skin test reaction as > or = 10 mm, but a significant minority interpreted it as negative. Use of the pen technique may decrease the number of false negative readings. Specific instruction on use of the pen technique to read TB skin tests should be incorporated into medical training curriculums.