Childbearing Decisions in Residency: A Multicenter Survey of Female Residents.

PURPOSE: To characterize how female residents make decisions about childbearing, factors associated with the decision to delay childbearing, and satisfaction with these decisions. METHOD: In 2017, the authors sent a voluntary, anonymous survey to 1,537 female residents enrolled across 78 graduate medical education programs, consisting of 25 unique specialties, at 6 U.S. academic medical centers. Survey items included personal, partner, and institutional characteristics, whether the respondent was delaying childbearing during residency, and the respondent's satisfaction with this decision. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 52% (n = 804). Among the 447 (56%) respondents who were married or partnered, 274 (61%) were delaying childbearing. Residents delaying childbearing were significantly more likely to be younger (P < .001), not currently a parent (P < .001), in a specialty with an uncontrollable lifestyle (P = .001), or in a large program (P = .004). Among self-reported reasons for delaying childbearing, which were not mutually exclusive, the majority cited a busy work schedule (n = 255; 93%) and desire not to extend residency training (n = 145; 53%). Many cited lack of access to childcare (n = 126; 46%), financial concerns (n = 116; 42%), fear of burdening colleagues (n = 96; 35%), and concern for pregnancy complications (n = 74; 27%). Only 38% (n = 103) of respondents delaying childbearing were satisfied with this decision, with satisfaction decreasing with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: Decisions to delay childbearing are more common in certain specialties, and many residents who delay childbearing are not satisfied with that decision. These findings suggest that greater attention is needed overall, and particularly in certain specialties, to promote policies and cultures that both anticipate and normalize parenthood in residency, thus minimizing the conflict between biological and professional choices for female residents.

Maternity Leave in Residency: A Multicenter Study of Determinants and Wellness Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To characterize determinants of resident maternity leave and the effect of length of leave on maternal well-being. METHOD: In 2017, the authors sent a voluntary, anonymous survey to female residents at 78 programs, in 25 unique specialties, at 6 institutions. Survey items included personal, partner, and child demographics, and logistics of leave, including whether leave was paid or vacation or sick leave was used. Outcomes were maternity leave length; duration of breastfeeding; burnout and postpartum depression screens; perceptions of support; and satisfaction with length of leave, breastfeeding, and childbearing during residency. RESULTS: Fifty-two percent (804/1,537) of residents responded. Among 16% (126) of respondents who were mothers, 50% (63) had their first child during residency. Seventy-seven maternity leaves were reported (range, 2-40 weeks), with most taking 6 weeks (32% of leaves; 25) and including vacation (81%; 62) or sick leave (64%; 49). Length of leave was associated with institution, use of sick leave or vacation, and amount of paid leave. The most frequently self-reported determinant of leave was the desire not to extend residency training (27%; 59). Training was not extended for 53% (41) of mothers; 9% (7) were unsure. Longer breastfeeding duration and perceptions of logistical support from program administration were associated with longer maternity leaves. Burnout affected approximately 50% (38) of mothers regardless of leave length. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates variability in administration of resident maternity leaves. Targets for intervention include policy clarification, improving program support, and consideration of parent wellness upon return to work.

Effects of Legislation Regulating Abortion in Arizona.

INTRODUCTION: Abortion is a common and safe procedure in the United States, the regulation of which varies by state. Since 2011, hundreds of state-level abortion restrictions have been enacted by legislatures across the country. This study describes the effects of two such regulations enacted in 2011 in Arizona, (A.R.S.) 36-2153 and 36-2155, that imposed a 24-hour waiting period requiring two separate in-person clinic visits before obtaining an abortion and banned advanced practice clinicians such as physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurse midwives from inducing medication abortions by prescribing mifepristone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a pre-post study to describe the effect of Arizona's scope of practice law on abortion provision by county. Using publicly available data, we compared patterns of abortion provision in 2009 and 2010 (before the laws) with 2012 and 2013. Our primary objective was to compare the proportion of abortions performed with medication by prescription of mifepristone (versus abortions performed surgically, known as aspiration abortions) before and after the laws were enacted. Our secondary objectives were to report the number of counties that lost an abortion provider and the change in the proportion of abortions performed before 14 weeks' gestation of pregnancy after the enactment of the laws. RESULTS: After enactment of the laws, the proportion of Arizona's 15 counties with abortion clinics decreased from 33% to 13%. Over this time, the proportion of abortions performed with medication in Arizona decreased by 17.4% (95% CI, 16.6%-18.3%; p = .0002), from 47.6% to 30.2%. Similarly, the proportion of abortions performed before 14 weeks' gestation in Arizona decreased by 3.3% (95% CI, 2.8%-3.8%; p = .0002) after the enactment of these laws. DISCUSSION: The proportion of abortions performed with medication and the proportion of abortion performed before 14 weeks' gestation in Arizona were negatively affected by the enactment of these laws. These findings are not explained by national temporal trends in abortion, because the proportion of abortions performed with medication increased and early abortions remained stable over the same time period in the United States as a whole. CONCLUSIONS: Proponents of laws restricting the provision of abortion such as these claim to improve the safety of abortion, but they actually seem to decrease access to abortion, as defined by the number of counties with abortion providers, and subsequently lead to delays in abortion. These data should inform future policies by providing an example of how such laws affect women seeking abortion.