Group prenatal care for pregnant women with opioid use disorder: Preliminary evidence for acceptability and benefits compared with individual prenatal care.

INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of group prenatal care (G-PNC) compared with individual prenatal care (I-PNC) for women with opioid use disorder (OUD) is unknown. The objectives of this study were to (1) assess the acceptability of co-locating G-PNC at an opioid treatment program and (2) describe the maternal and infant characteristics and outcomes of pregnant women in treatment for OUD who participated in G-PNC and those who did not. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 71 women (G-PNC n = 15; I-PNC n = 56) who were receiving treatment for OUD from one center and who delivered in 2019. Acceptability was determined by assessing the representativeness of the G-PNC cohorts, examining attendance at sessions, and using responses to a survey completed by G-PNC participants. The receipt of health services and healthcare use, behaviors, and infant health between those who participated in G-PNC and those who received I-PNC were described. RESULTS: G-PNC was successfully implemented among women with varying backgrounds (e.g., racial, ethnic, marital status) who self-selected into the group. All G-PNC participants reported that they were satisfied to very satisfied with the program. Increased rates of breastfeeding initiation, breastfeeding at hospital discharge, receipt of the Tdap vaccine, and postpartum visit attendance at 1-2 weeks and 4-8 weeks were observed in the G-PNC group compared with the I-PNC group. Fewer G-PNC reported postpartum depression symptomatology. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that co-located G-PNC at an opioid treatment program is an acceptable model for pregnant women in treatment for OUD and may result in improved outcomes.

A Learning Community Supporting Experiential Education to Learn About Healthcare Equity Quality Improvement.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) for healthcare equity (HCE) is an important aspect of graduate medical education (GME), but there is limited published research on educational programs teaching this topic. AIM: To describe and evaluate a novel curriculum and learning community for HCE QI. SETTING: Academic institution. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-eight participants: 32 learners and 16 faculty. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: This novel, longitudinal curriculum utilized a virtual hub-and-spoke learning community. Five interdepartmental teams of learners and faculty (spokes) used QI methods to address an existing institutional healthcare inequity (HCI). A team of experts (the hub) led monthly group meetings to foster the learning community and guide teams. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Retrospective pre-post curricular surveys assessed participant satisfaction, knowledge, and skills in applying QI methods to address HCIs. Response rate was 33%. The majority of participants (92.4%) reported an increase in knowledge and skills in conducting QI for HCIs. All participants reported an increased likelihood of future engagement in HCE QI. Final QI projects average QIPAT7 score was 25.8 (SD = 4.93), consistent with "meets expectations" in most categories. DISCUSSION: This program is a feasible model to teach GME learners and faculty about HCE QI and may be adopted by other institutions.

Patients' perspectives regarding induction of labor in the absence of maternal and fetal indications: are our patients ready for the ARRIVE trial?

BACKGROUND: After careful review of the ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management) data, induction of labor prior to one's due date in the absence of maternal and fetal indications (which the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists currently refers to as "elective") is now endorsed as a "reasonable" option by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). As a result, there has been much discussion among providers regarding how best to operationalize this ACOG recommendation into shared decision making regarding delivery planning. However, we lack a formal understanding of the perspectives of patients themselves on this topic. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient understanding and preference for induction of labor prior to one's due date. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional survey of women in their third trimester of pregnancy presenting for routine obstetric care in August 2018. The survey included a series of questions designed to assess basic demographics, obstetric history, and patient understanding and opinions about the practice of induction of labor, with a focus on induction of labor prior to one's due date in the absence of maternal and fetal indications. RESULTS: A total of 108 women were approached for participation, and 100 women participated in this survey (93% participation). Of the participants, 99% were supportive of induction of labor for fetal indications, and 96% were supportive for maternal indications prior to one's due date. In contrast, 54% of participants were not interested in induction of labor in the absence of maternal and fetal indications prior to one's due date. Women opposed to induction of labor in the absence of maternal and fetal indications were almost 4 times more likely to be concerned about the possibility that induction of labor in the absence of maternal and fetal indications could cause fetal harm (odds ratio, 3.9; confidence interval, 1.2-13.2). CONCLUSION: Nearly all women surveyed in our pilot study were interested in induction of labor prior to one's due date for maternal or fetal indications. 46% of those surveyed were interested in induction of labor in the absence of maternal and fetal indications prior to their due date. Concern about potential fetal harm was more likely among women opposed to induction of labor in the absence of maternal and fetal indications. As providers discuss delivery planning with their patients, these results may provide a useful context for operationalizing and individualizing the results of the ARRIVE trial for their patients.

Race, ethnicity, and income factors impacting human papillomavirus vaccination rates.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cervical cancer disproportionately affect low-income and minority women. HPV vaccines have the potential to either reduce or exacerbate racial disparities in HPV-related diseases and cervical cancers, depending on the equitability of vaccine uptake. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to identify barriers and facilitators of equitable uptake of HPV vaccination among low-income and minority girls. This review discusses factors related to race, ethnicity, and income that are associated with initiation and completion rates of the 3-dose HPV vaccine series and presents targets for intervention. METHODS: We reviewed relevant English-language literature to identify current vaccination rates and factors associated with vaccine uptake. Study findings related to race (black, Latino, Asian), and incomes were summarized. RESULTS: Current trends in the United States indicate low uptake among all adolescents, and that rates stagnated between 2011 and 2012. Low-income and minority adolescents are equally or more likely to start the HPV vaccination series than are white and higher-income adolescents, but are less likely to complete all 3 shots. Provider recommendation is a key factor in HPV vaccination, and minorities are less likely to report receiving recommendations for HPV vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: As black, Hispanic, and Asian populations continue to grow in the United States over the next several decades, it is imperative that we not only improve HPV vaccination rates overall, but also focus on high-risk populations to prevent an increase in cervical cancer disparities.

Race, ethnicity and income as factors for HPV vaccine acceptance and use.

If distributed equitably, Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines have the potential to reduce racial disparities in HPV-related diseases and cervical cancers. However, current trends in the US indicate low uptake among all adolescents, with persistent disparities among minority and low-income adolescents despite largely positive views of vaccination among their parents. As Black, Hispanic, and Asian populations continue to grow in the US over the next 40 y, it is imperative that we not only improve HPV vaccination rates overall, but focus on high-risk populations to prevent an increase in cervical cancer disparities. This review discusses initiation and completion rates of the three-dose HPV vaccine series among adolescents in high-risk groups and describes cultural similarities and differences in motivation and barriers to vaccination. The goal of this review is to highlight factors leading to vaccination in different adolescent racial groups and to help guide the development of strategies to increase rates of vaccine initiation and completion among groups at the highest risk for developing cervical cancer.