Demand for abortion training and technical assistance in primary care: Unmet need and programmatic interventions.

OBJECTIVE: Quantify primary care provider requests for abortion training and technical assistance (TA) and availability of programs to support abortion provision. STUDY DESIGN: We reviewed requests for training and TA from four programs focused on capacity building for abortion care. Collectively, these programs serve every region of the United States. RESULTS: Between January 1, 2021 - September 30, 2022, the programs received 207 requests for training and/or TA from individuals and organizations in 30 states. Approximately 60% of requests went unfulfilled due to programs' capacity constraints. CONCLUSIONS: Unmet demand for training and TA to integrate abortion into primary care is significant. Increasing the availability of training and TA could increase the abortion workforce and improve access to care.

Telehealth Medication Abortion in Primary Care: A Comparison to Usual in-Clinic Care.

INTRODUCTION: Providing abortion in primary care expands access and alleviates delays. The 2020 COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) led to the expansion of telehealth, including medication abortion (MAB). This study evaluates the accessibility of novel telehealth MAB (teleMAB) initiated during the PHE, with the lifting of mifepristone restrictions, compared with traditional in-clinic MAB offered before the PHE at a Massachusetts safety-net primary care organization. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective electronic medical record review of 267 MABs. We describe sociodemographic, care access, and complete abortion characteristics and compare differences between teleMAB and in-clinic MABs using Chi-squared test, fisher's exact test, independent t test, and Wilcoxon rank sum. We conducted logistic regression to examine differences in time to care (6 days or less vs 7 days or more). RESULTS: 184 MABs were eligible for analysis (137 in-clinic, 47 teleMAB). Patients were not significantly more likely to receive teleMAB versus in-clinic MAB based on race, ethnicity, language, or payment. Completed abortion did not significantly differ between groups (P = .187). Patients received care more quickly when accessing teleMAB compared with usual in-clinic MAB (median 3 days, range 0 to 20 vs median 6 days, range 0 to 32; P < . 001). TeleMAB patients had 2.29 times the odds of having their abortion appointment within 6 days compared with in-clinic (95% CI: 1.13, 4.86). CONCLUSION: TeleMAB in primary care is as effective, timelier, and potentially more accessible than in-clinic MAB when in-person mifepristone regulations were enforced. TeleMAB is feasible and can promote patient-centered and timely access to abortion care.

Organizing Primary Care Clinicians to Expand Reproductive Health Access: A Qualitative Program Evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive sexual reproductive health care (SRH) in the United States, including abortion, is siloed from primary care, making it more difficult to access. The crisis in access has drastically worsened following the overturning of Roe v Wade, 410 US 113 (1973). Primary care clinicians (PCC) are well-positioned to protect and expand SRH access but do not receive sufficient training or support. The Reproductive Health Access Network ("Network") was created to connect like-minded clinicians to engage in advocacy, training, and peer support to enhance access to SRH in their communities and practices. This evaluation explores PCC leaders' experiences within this SRH organizing network. METHODS: In 2021, we conducted 34 semistructured phone interviews with a purposive sample of current (n=27) and former (n=7) PCC leaders in the Network (N=87). The program's theory of change and network evaluation framework guided reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants viewed Network support as critical to ending isolation through three mechanisms: connecting to a supportive community of like-minded peers, empowering leadership, and providing infrastructure for local organizing. They viewed mentorship as critical in building a sustainable and equitable pipeline of PCC leaders. Participants identified challenges to engaging fully, such as burnout and discrimination experienced both within and outside the Network. CONCLUSIONS: Community-building, peer support, and mentorship are critical to building and sustaining PCC leadership in SRH-organizing communities. Efforts are needed to mitigate burnout, support SRH education and mentorship for PCCs, and transform into a truly inclusive community. The Network structure is promising for amplifying efforts to enhance SRH access through clinician leadership.

Telemedicine Abortion in Primary Care: An Exploration of Patient Experiences.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to explore patients' experiences and perspectives obtaining telemedicine medication abortion (TeleMAB) through their primary care health system. METHODS: We conducted in-depth telephone interviews with 14 English-, Spanish-, and/or Portuguese-speaking patients who received a TeleMAB between July 2020 and December 2021, within a large primary care safety-net community health system in Massachusetts. We created and piloted a semistructured interview guide informed by patient-clinician communication frameworks and prior studies on patient experiences with TeleMAB. We analyzed data using reflexive thematic analysis and summarized main themes. RESULTS: Overall, participants found TeleMAB services in their primary care health system acceptable, positive, and easy. Participants discussed how TeleMAB supported their ability to exercise control, autonomy, and flexibility, and decreased barriers experienced with in-clinic care. Many participants perceived their primary care health system as the place to go for any pregnancy-related health care need, including abortion. They valued receiving abortion care from their established health care team within the context of ongoing social and medical concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Patients find TeleMAB from their primary care health system acceptable and beneficial. Primary care settings can integrate TeleMAB services to decrease care silos, normalize abortion as a part of comprehensive primary care, and improve access through remote care offerings. TeleMAB supports patients' access and autonomy, with the potential to benefit many people of reproductive age.

Patient perspectives of using reproductive autonomy to measure quality of care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Current measures of reproductive health care quality, such as rates of "unintended" pregnancies, neglect to incorporate patients' desires and center their reproductive autonomy. This study explores patients' perspectives on and receptivity to alternative metrics for measuring quality of such care. METHODS: An online research recruitment firm identified eligible participants living in New York, ages 18-45, self-identifying as women, and having visited a primary care provider in the last year. We conducted five virtual focus groups and eight in-depth interviews with participants (N = 30) in 2021. Semi-structured guides queried on ideal clinic interactions when preventing or attempting pregnancy and their perspectives on how to measure the quality of such encounters, including receptivity to using our definition of reproductive autonomy to develop one such metric: "whether the patient got the reproductive health service or counseling that they wanted to get, while having all the information about and access to their options, and not feeling forced into anything." We employed an inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants wanted care that was non-judgmental, respectful, and responsive to their needs and preferences. For pregnancy prevention, many preferred unbiased information about contraceptive options to help make their own decisions. For pregnancy, many desired comprehensive information and more provider support. There was considerable support for using reproductive autonomy to measure quality of care. CONCLUSIONS: Patients had distinct desires in their preferred approach to discussions about preventing versus attempting pregnancy. Quality of reproductive health care should be measured from the patient's perspective. Given participants' demonstrated support, future research is needed to develop and test a new metric that assesses patients' perceptions of reproductive autonomy during clinical encounters.

Implications of Overturning Roe v Wade on Abortion Training in US Family Medicine Residency Programs.

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, opening the door to state-level abortion bans. By August 2023, 17 states banned abortion or instituted early gestational age bans. We performed an analysis to assess the proportion of accredited US family medicine residency programs and trainees in states with abortion restrictions. Twenty-nine percent of family medicine residency programs (n = 201) and residents (n = 3,930) are in states with bans or very restrictive policies. Family medicine residency programs must optimize training and exposure to abortion within their contexts, so graduates are able to care for patients seeking abortions or needing follow-up care.

"I totally didn't need to be there in person": New York women's preferences for telehealth consultations for sexual and reproductive healthcare in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Expanding telehealth in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic supported patients with needed sexual and reproductive healthcare (SRH) for continuity of care and reproductive autonomy. While telehealth for SRH is feasible and acceptable, studies have not explored patient preferences towards telehealth SRH from primary care settings. OBJECTIVE: We explore New York women's preferences for telehealth SRH in primary care. METHODS: In 2021, we conducted 5 focus groups and 8 interviews with New York women of reproductive age who had a consultation with a primary care provider in the last year as part of a larger study on assessing SRH quality in primary care. We queried on experiences with telehealth for SRH and perceptions of measuring SRH quality in primary care telehealth consultations. We employed reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: We recruited 30 participants. They preferred telehealth for "basic" SRH conversations, such as contraceptive counselling, and desired in-person consultations for "complex" topics, like pregnancy and preconception, especially if nulliparous. Telehealth benefits included convenience, simplicity of some SRH needs, and alleviating power dynamics in patient-provider relationships. Challenges included lack of one-on-one connection, seriousness of pregnancy discussions, privacy, and internet access. Measuring quality of telehealth SRH should include fostering positive and engaging environments. CONCLUSION: Participants find telehealth SRH in primary care preferable, underscoring the importance of offering and expanding this care. As telehealth SRH expands, providers should strengthen quality by building rapport to facilitate conversations on "serious" topics and their ability to help patients remotely.

The expansion of phone- and video-based consultations in the United States for sexual and reproductive healthcare (SRH) during the COVID-19 pandemic supported patients with needed continuity of care, while minimizing virus exposure. As COVID-19 becomes endemic, medical organizations and providers recommend sustaining and expanding telehealth for SRH and other primary care needs. No studies to date have explored patient acceptability of telehealth for SRH services broadly in primary care settings. This brief report explores preferences for telehealth for SRH in primary care among New York women of reproductive age through focus groups and interviews. Overall, participants preferred telehealth for "basic" SRH conversations, such as contraceptive options, and in-person consultations for more "complex" topics, like pregnancy and preconception. Benefits of telehealth services included convenience, simplicity of some SRH needs, and being able to minimize uncomfortable power dynamics in the patient­provider relationship. Challenges included the lack of one-on-one connection with a provider, the perceived seriousness of pregnancy-related conversations, privacy, and internet access concerns. Patients find telehealth for SRH in primary care preferable, especially for simple SRH conversations, which suggests the importance of continuing to offer services in this manner.

Women's Perspectives on a Reproductive Health Services Screening Question: An Alternative to Pregnancy Intention Screening.

Background: Current efforts to integrate reproductive health care into primary care in the United States involve assessing pregnancy intentions and reproductive goals, which are often not meaningful or attainable for some. Alternatively, we designed a reproductive health services-based screening question: "Can I help you with any reproductive health services today, such as preventing pregnancy or planning a healthy pregnancy?" In this study, we describe women's interpretations of this question as part of a larger study, exploring perspectives on reproductive health care quality in primary care. Materials and Methods: We utilized a third-party research firm to recruit New York women of reproductive age (18-45), who visited a primary care provider in the past year. We conducted five focus groups and eight interviews (N = 30). Semistructured guides queried participants on interpretations of the screening question and preferences for raising reproductive health concerns during a primary care visit. We employed inductive thematic analysis. Results: Participants interpreted the question as offering contraception or pregnancy counseling and care, although younger participants also understood it as offering sexual and reproductive health services broadly. Participants also connected the question with discussions about their ability to conceive. Some participants described experiences with provider assumptions and implicit bias. Tensions emerged around accepting primary care as a setting for reproductive health due to a perceived lack of specialized training. Conclusions: Participants interpreted the screening question as intended, indicating face validity. Primary care settings should increase patients' awareness of reproductive health service availability, such as by routinely introducing a services-based screening question.

US clinicians' perspectives on how mifepristone regulations affect access to medication abortion and early pregnancy loss care in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: Protocols including mifepristone are the most effective medication regimens for medication abortion and early pregnancy loss (EPL) management. Both can be safely and effectively offered in primary care settings. Despite mifepristone's excellent safety record, the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) heavily regulates provision. This exploratory study examines US primary care clinicians' perspectives on the effects of mifepristone restrictions, including FDA regulations, on access to medication abortion and EPL management in primary care. STUDY DESIGN: In 2019, we conducted an online qualitative survey of US primary care clinicians recruited from six reproductive health-focused listservs. Open-ended questions queried about barriers to providing mifepristone and effects on patients when unable to access mifepristone in primary care. We iteratively coded and analyzed qualitative data using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of our analytic sample of 113 respondents, one-third had mifepristone available in their current primary practice setting. Key barriers to provision stemmed from the FDA rule to stock and dispense mifepristone onsite, including logistical difficulties and resistance from health center leadership. Clinicians believed that lack of mifepristone in primary care resulted in negative patient experiences, including disrupted continuity of care, medically-unnecessary appointments, and undesired aspiration procedures. CONCLUSIONS: FDA regulations that inhibit mifepristone provision in primary care create structural barriers to provision. This may result in physical, emotional, and financial burdens for patients. IMPLICATIONS: When mifepristone is unavailable in primary care, some patients in need of abortion or EPL care may experience physical, emotional, and financial harms. Removing FDA restrictions is a critical step in reducing primary care barriers to mifepristone provision and improving access to timely, patient-centered medication abortion and EPL care.

Provision of Early Pregnancy Loss Care in New York Federally Qualified Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: Office-based early pregnancy loss (EPL) care is safe and suitable to Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs); prevalence of provision in FQHCs is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a mailed site-level survey of FQHCs in New York State (n = 405). Sites that offered prenatal care were eligible for analysis. Questions included provision of and barriers to providing EPL care options. Content analysis was used for write-in responses to barriers. We conducted bivariate analyses using Fisher's Exact tests and risk ratios to investigate associations between EPL care provision and the independent variables site urbanicity, prenatal clinician type, and ultrasound access. RESULTS: Of 181 mailings returned, 63 sites were eligible (response rate 44.7%); 88.9% provided expectant management, 53.9% medication management, and 23.8% uterine aspiration. Common barriers included lack of clinical infrastructure, poor ultrasound access, and insufficient training. Some held perceived barriers regarding uterine aspiration. Sites with regular ultrasound access were 1.85 times as likely to provide uterine aspiration as sites without regular ultrasound access (95% CI, 1.16-2.95). CONCLUSIONS: Few New York FQHCs provided comprehensive EPL care. Supporting FQHCs to overcome barriers may expand access to EPL treatment in primary care and increase continuity and patient centeredness.

Barriers and Enablers to Family Physicians' Provision of Early Pregnancy Loss Management in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Early pregnancy loss (EPL) is a common experience. Treatment options include expectant management, medication, and uterine aspiration. Although family physicians can offer comprehensive EPL treatment in their office-based settings, few actually do. This study explored the postresidency provision of EPL management and factors that inhibit or enable providing this care among family physicians trained in early abortion during residency. METHODS: Using an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design, we studied a sample of family physicians trained in early abortion during residency. We initially interviewed a subset trained in uterine aspiration during residency, then surveyed the entire sample. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using grounded theory; results informed survey development. On survey responses, we used Pearson χ2 to examine the association between certain variables and provision of EPL care options. RESULTS: Most of the 15 interview and 231 survey respondents provided expectant management of EPL. Of the survey respondents, 47.2% provided medication management and 11.4% manual vacuum aspiration. Key challenges and facilitators involved referral, training, ultrasound access, and managing systems-level issues. In bivariate analyses, providing prenatal care, offering abortion care, access to ultrasound, and competency were positively associated with providing EPL management options (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical training alone is insufficient to expand access to comprehensive EPL care in family medicine office-based settings. Supporting family physicians during and after residency with training and technical assistance to address barriers to care may strengthen their abilities to champion practice change and expand access to comprehensive EPL management options.

Effectiveness of clinical decision support to enhance delivery of family planning services in primary care settings.

PURPOSE: There is a need to improve delivery of family planning services, including preconception and contraception services, in primary care. We assessed whether a clinician-facing clinical decision support implemented in a family medicine staffed primary care network improved provision of family planning services for reproductive-aged female patients, and differed in effect for certain patients or clinical settings. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic study with difference-in-differences design to estimate, at the visit-level, the clinical decision support's effect on documenting the provision of family planning services 52 weeks prior to and after implementation. We also used logistic regression with a sample subset to evaluate intervention effect on the patient-level. RESULTS: 27,817 eligible patients made 91,185 visits during the study period. Overall, unadjusted documentation of family planning services increased by 2.7 percentage points (55.7% pre-intervention to 58.4% intervention). In the adjusted analysis, documentation increased by 3.4 percentage points (95% CI: 2.24, 4.63). The intervention effect varied across sites at the visit-level, ranging from a -1.2 to +6.5 percentage point change. Modification of effect by race, insurance, and site were substantial, but not by age group nor ethnicity. Additionally, patient-level subset analysis showed that those exposed to the intervention had 1.26 times the odds of having family planning services documented after implementation compared to controls (95% CI: 1.17, 1.36). CONCLUSIONS: This clinical decision support modestly improved documentation of family planning services in our primary care network; effect varied across sites. IMPLICATIONS: Integrating a family planning services clinical decision support into the electronic medical record at primary care sites may increase the provision of preconception and/or contraception services for women of reproductive age. Further study should explore intervention effect at sites with lower initial provision of family planning services.

"If You Don't Ask, I'm Not Going to Tell You": Using Community-Based Participatory Research to Inform Pregnancy Intention Screening Processes for Black and Latina Women in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Public health and medical professional organizations recommend screening women of reproductive age for pregnancy intention (PI) routinely in primary care. Existing PI screening tools may not address the complexity of intentions for women of color or lower socioeconomic status or be well-suited to primary care settings. This study sought to inform recommendations for carrying out PI screening meaningfully in primary care settings. METHODS: This community-based participatory research project united staff from a research institution, community health organization, and federally qualified health center in a predominantly Latina community in New York City. The Community Advisory Board members designed the research question, developed qualitative interview guides, and conducted in-depth interviews with 30 English- and Spanish-speaking female federally qualified health center patients ages 15 to 49. Community Advisory Board members developed an initial codebook using an inductive approach and refined themes throughout the coding process. After coding, Community Advisory Board members created a conceptual map representing relationships between key themes, and generated data-informed recommendations for PI screening practices that are relevant and feasible in the community context. RESULTS: Participants expressed a range of experiences with PI screening processes, depending on medical histories, attitudes, norms, and perceived benefits of screening. Three central themes emerged through frequency of occurrence, consistency in content, and relevance as reflected in concept mapping: agency, judgment and shame, and expertise versus authority. Recommendations included specific strategies and wording providers could use to explain the rationale and context for discussing PI. CONCLUSIONS: Future work should examine the experience and effectiveness of implementing these community-based participatory research-derived recommendations in primary care.

Building Community Capacity for Qualitative Research to Improve Pregnancy Intention Screening.

BACKGROUND: Community-based participatory research (CBPR), with an emphasis on co-learning and collaboration, holds promise for exploring the pregnancy intention (PI) screening needs of Latina patients and their health care providers. We describe a CBPR partnership exploring PI screening processes at a federally qualified health center in New York City, and lessons learned related to community participation, training, and collaboration between partners. METHODS: Stakeholders convened a community advisory board (CAB) to carry out CBPR. The CAB administered a biannual process evaluation to assess members' experiences with the project. RESULTS: Despite challenges, the CAB prioritized community participation, training, and collaboration. At three time points, members reported gaining research skills (93%, 100%, 100%), and believing in the project's potential to improve PI screening (100%, 100%, 100%). CONCLUSIONS: Building capacity for CBPR requires providing iterative training, navigating discrepancies between CAB members' interests and training needs, facilitating the meaningful participation of members with limited time and/or technical skills, and ensuring an equitable division of labor.

Intention to provide abortion upon completing family medicine residency and subsequent abortion provision: a 5-year follow-up survey.

OBJECTIVE: Among family physicians who graduated from residencies with abortion training, we explore the association between intention to provide abortion at the end of residency and abortion provision 5 years postresidency. STUDY DESIGN: We invited 2009-2012 graduates from US family medicine residency programs with a required opt-out abortion training rotation or elective abortion training opportunities, and who had completed a baseline end-of-residency survey (N=477) to take our follow-up survey 5 years postresidency (2014-2017). We used logistic regression to examine the association between intention to provide abortion postresidency and abortion provision 5 years later. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-two of 477 (36.1%) family physicians responded to our survey. More responders compared to nonresponders had intended to provide uterine aspiration and medication abortion at baseline (p≪.01) and attended residency in states considered hostile and middle ground toward abortion rights (p=.03). Of the 155 eligible respondents for analysis, 27.1% offered some type of abortion care in their practice. Of those that provided abortion, 100% provided medication abortion and 71.4% uterine aspiration. Most respondents that provided uterine aspiration abortion did so in abortion/family planning clinics or in sites that already established routine abortion care. Those who had intended to provide any abortion care at baseline had 4.03 times the odds of providing any abortion care 5 years later (95% confidence interval: 1.72-9.47). Administrative and systems-level barriers to integrate abortion were mentioned most frequently compared to personal beliefs or safety factors to explain why respondents did not provide abortion. CONCLUSIONS: We found an association between intention to provide abortion after residency and providing abortion in practice 5 years later. However, only 27.1% of respondents provided some abortion care. Factors beyond intention to provide care appear to inhibit or facilitate family physicians' abilities to practice abortion in primary care. IMPLICATIONS: Supporting family physicians who express intention to provide abortion after residency with additional training and technical assistance may contribute toward expanding access and availability of abortion care.

Primary care providers' responses to pregnancy intention screening challenges: community-based participatory research at an urban community health centre.

BACKGROUND: Incorporating pregnancy intention screening into primary care to address unmet preconception and contraception needs may improve delivery of family planning services. A notable research gap exists regarding providers' experiences conducting this screening in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To explore primary care providers' perceived challenges in conducting pregnancy intention screening with women of reproductive age and to identify strategies to discuss this in primary care settings. METHODS: This qualitative study emerged from a 2017 community-based participatory research project. We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 10 primary care providers who care for women of reproductive age at an urban federally qualified health centre. Analysis consisted of interview debriefing, transcript coding and content analysis with the Community Advisory Board. RESULTS: Across departments, respondents acknowledged difficulties conducting pregnancy intention screening and identified strategies for working with patients' individual readiness to discuss pregnancy intention. Strategies included: linking patients' health concerns with sexual and reproductive health, applying a shared decision-making model to all patient-provider interactions, practicing goal setting and motivational interviewing, fostering non-judgmental relationships and introducing pregnancy intention in one visit but following up at later times when more relevant for patients. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities exist for health centres to address pregnancy intention screening challenges, such as implementing routine screening and waiting room tools to foster provider and patient agency and sharing best practices with providers across departments by facilitating comprehensive training and periodic check-ins. Exploring providers' experiences may assist health centres in improving pregnancy intention screening in the primary care setting.