Forensic Nurses' Understanding of Emergency Contraception Mechanisms: Implications for Access to Emergency Contraception.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 25,000 pregnancies result from sexual assault in the United States annually. Numerous professional healthcare organizations endorse offering emergency contraception (EC) as an integrated aspect of post-sexual-assault care. Lack of knowledge surrounding EC's mechanism of action, including misinterpreting ECs as abortifacients, might restrict patient access to this important healthcare option. PURPOSE: We evaluated sexual assault nurse examiners' understanding of the mechanism of action of oral ECs levonorgestrel (LNG) and ulipristal acetate (UPA). METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of practicing sexual assault nurse examiners was conducted through the International Association of Forensic Nurses. RESULTS: Among 173 respondents, 96.53% reported they prescribed/dispensed EC at the time of medical forensic examinations. LNG was prescribed more frequently than UPA (57.80% vs. 38.2%, respectively). When asked if they agreed or disagreed if LNG and UPA can disrupt an established pregnancy, 83.2% selected disagree/strongly disagree for LNG versus 78.6% for UPA, which were not significantly different. When asked whether the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade would change their EC prescribing, 79.77% reported it will have no change, 6.94% said it would increase, and 12.72% reported they were unsure. Several commented they were concerned whether state laws would prohibit EC and at least one program stopped prescribing EC because of their state laws. IMPLICATIONS: Addressing misinformation regarding EC's mechanism of action and increasing access to oral EC options after sexual assault have the potential to reduce the incidence of rape-related pregnancy.

Sensitivity to Deaf Culture Among Otolaryngology and Audiology Trainees.

OBJECTIVE: The Deaf community is an ethnolinguistic minority group. Low sensitivity to Deaf culture contributes to health disparities among Deaf patients. This study determines the level of sensitivity to Deaf culture among otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (OHNS) and audiology trainees. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey study of OHNS and audiology trainees from 10 large US institutions. Trainees were queried on their exposure to and comfort with Deaf patients and their education on, attitude toward, and awareness and knowledge of Deaf culture. Sensitivity to Deaf culture was operationalized as awareness and knowledge of Deaf culture. These were assessed using a 35-item instrument that was previously developed using a d/Deaf community-based participatory approach to research. We used T-tests to compare the sample to previous samples of medical students with training in Deaf culture (MS-TDCs) and general practitioners (GPs). RESULTS: There were 91 completed surveys (response rate 44.5%). Almost all were aware of Deaf culture (97.8%). The mean knowledge score was 55.0% (standard deviation (SD) 13.4%), which was significantly higher than that for GPs at 43.0% (SD 15.0%) (95% confidence interval 8.1%, 15.8%, P < .0001) but significantly lower than that for MS-TDCs at 69.0% (SD 13.0%)(CI -20.3%, -7.6%, P < .0001). Knowledge scores were comparable for OHNS and audiology trainees (P = .09). CONCLUSION: This sample of OHNS and audiology trainees was more sensitive to Deaf culture than GPs but less sensitive than MS-TDCs. Developing specialty-specific education may be warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.