Human Papillomavirus Inpatient Postpartum Vaccination: Clinical Guideline Implementation.

OBJECTIVE: The nine-valent human papillomavirus (9vHPV) vaccine is highly effective at preventing cervical cancer, yet U.S. vaccination rates remain low. The objective of this study was to evaluate integration of 9vHPV inpatient vaccination into routine postpartum care. METHODS: Obstetrics professionals at an academic urban referral center received an emailed protocol outlining a novel 9vHPV vaccination program of postpartum inpatients aged 26 years or younger. A retrospective evaluation from March 2021 to March 2022 was conducted to evaluate implementation. Characteristics of patients vaccinated before pregnancy compared with vaccine-eligible patients (none, unknown, or partially vaccinated status) were compared by the use of χ2, analysis of variance, and multivariable logistic regression. Similarly, analyses were performed comparing vaccine-eligible patients who did with those who did not receive an inpatient 9vHPV vaccination. RESULTS: Of 569 postpartum inpatients, 370 (65.0%) were already vaccinated, 70 (34.2%) were never vaccinated, 49 (24.6%) were partially vaccinated, and 80 (14.1%) had unknown status. Of vaccine-eligible patients, 46 (23.1%) received 9vHPV vaccination as an inpatient. In multivariable analysis, race and ethnicity, marital status, and primary language were significant predictors of vaccination before pregnancy. Among vaccine-eligible patients, inpatient vaccination recipients were primarily Hispanic, Spanish speaking, and publicly insured. In multivariable analysis of vaccine-eligible patients, receiving care from the certified nurse midwifery practice was the only independent predictor of vaccination (odds ratio 2.4, 95% CI 1.02-5.74, P=.04). CONCLUSION: Non-Hispanic White, Spanish-speaking, and married patients were disproportionally undervaccinated in our baseline population, but about one quarter of vaccine-eligible patients received 9vHPV vaccination postpartum. Inpatient postpartum 9vHPV vaccination may help narrow disparities in vaccination.

Omission of Pelvic Examination Before Gender-Affirming Hysterectomy and Vaginectomy.

Surgeons may be performing pelvic examinations on transgender patients before gender-affirming pelvic surgery (hysterectomy and vaginectomy) without a clinically significant indication. A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single-institution academic referral center comparing 30-day perioperative outcomes of all 62 gender-affirming pelvic surgeries, including hysterectomy alone, hysterectomy with vaginectomy, and vaginectomy alone, between April 2018 and March 2022. More than half (53.2%, n=33) of the 62 patients did not have an in-office, preoperative, internal pelvic examination within 1 year of gender-affirming surgery. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics nor 30-day perioperative outcomes between the examined and examination-omitted groups, suggesting that omission of a preoperative pelvic examination is probably safe before gender-affirming hysterectomy and vaginectomy, minimizing barriers to gender-affirming surgical care.

Intimate Partner Violence Against Transgender Women: Prevalence and Correlates in Lima, Peru (2016-2018).

Limited data exists on intimate partner violence (IPV) among transgender women (TW), though global trends suggest IPV is associated with HIV risk in this population. We describe the prevalence of verbal, physical, and/or sexual violence as well as participant- and partner-level correlates of IPV among TW in Lima, Peru. Among 389 respondents, 15.2% reported IPV with one or more of their last three sexual partners: 9.2% verbal, 8.2% physical, and 2.3% sexual violence. Physical and verbal violence were more common with stable partners (aPR 3.46, 95% CI 1.17-10.25, aPR 2.46, 95% CI 1.14-5.28, respectively). Physical violence was associated with condomless receptive anal intercourse (cRAI) (aPR 2.22, 95% CI 1.19-4.13) and partner alcohol use (aPR 4.38, 95% CI 1.56-12.33) while verbal violence correlated with participant inebriation (aPR 4.86, 95% CI 1.63-14.46). Our results link IPV with stable partnerships, alcohol use, and cRAI, suggesting TW in Peru may benefit from multidimensional IPV prevention strategies to foster supportive relationships and reduce HIV transmission.

Facilitators and Barriers to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Incentive Use: Findings From a Clinic Intervention for Low-Income Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Healthy food incentives matching Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits spent on fruits and vegetables subsidize increased produce consumption among low-income individuals at risk for food insecurity and diet-related disease. Yet many eligible participants do not use these incentives, in part because of limited awareness. This study examined the acceptability and impact of a primary care-based informational intervention on facilitators and barriers to use of the statewide SNAP incentive program Double Up Food Bucks. METHODS: Focus groups (n=5) were conducted April-June 2015 among a purposive sample (n=26) of SNAP-enrolled adults from a Michigan health clinic serving low-income patients. All had participated in a waiting room-based informational intervention about Double Up Food Bucks; none had used Double Up Food Bucks before the intervention. Groups were stratified by Double Up Food Bucks use/non-use during the 6-month intervention period. Results were analyzed in 2016-2017 through an iterative content analysis process. RESULTS: Participants reported the waiting room intervention was acceptable and a key facilitator of first-time Double Up Food Bucks use. Motivators for Double Up Food Bucks use included (1) eating more healthfully, (2) stretching SNAP benefits, (3) higher-quality produce at markets, and (4) unique market environments. Remaining barriers included (1) lack of transportation, (2) limited market locations/hours, and (3) persistent confusion among a small number of participants regarding incentive use. CONCLUSIONS: Low-income patients who received an informational intervention about Double Up Food Bucks reported numerous benefits from participation. Yet barriers remained for a subset of patients. Improving geographic accessibility and ease of SNAP incentive redemption may further improve dietary quality and food security among vulnerable populations.

"Doubling Up" on Produce at Detroit Farmers Markets: Patterns and Correlates of Use of a Healthy Food Incentive.

INTRODUCTION: Federal food assistance programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) help address food insecurity, yet many participants still struggle to afford nutritionally adequate foods. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has committed $100 million to the expansion and evaluation of SNAP healthy food incentives, which match SNAP funds spent on produce. However, little is known about who uses SNAP incentives or how often they are used. This study examines patterns and correlates of use of the SNAP incentive Double Up Food Bucks at all eight participating Detroit farmers markets during 2012-2013. METHODS: SNAP/Double Up Food Bucks transactions from handwritten farmers market logs (n=21,541) were linked with state administrative SNAP enrollment data. Frequency of incentive use and characteristics of Double Up Food Bucks users relative to the overall Detroit SNAP-enrolled population were examined, as were market-level characteristics associated with program use. Negative binomial regression was used to estimate predictors of repeat transactions (analyses conducted 2015-2017). RESULTS: Although demographic characteristics of Double Up Food Bucks users reflected those of the overall Detroit SNAP-enrolled population, Double Up Food Bucks users were poorer and disproportionately female. One third of Double Up Food Bucks users had more than one transaction during the 2-year period. Repeat transactions were directly correlated with identifying as white (incidence rate ratio=2.34, 95% CI=2.11, 2.59, p<0.001), and inversely correlated with driving distance from market of first transaction (incidence rate ratio=0.98 per mile, 95% CI=0.98, 0.99, p<0.001). Rates of repeat transactions also varied significantly by market. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing barriers to initial use and return visits can help maximize the impact and reach of SNAP incentives among Americans at highest risk of diet-related disease.

Increasing Use of a Healthy Food Incentive: A Waiting Room Intervention Among Low-Income Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Diet-related disease is disproportionately concentrated in low-income communities where fruit and vegetable consumption is far below guidelines. To address financial barriers, Double Up Food Bucks (DUFB)-a statewide healthy food incentive-matches Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funds spent at farmers markets. However, incentive use is limited. This study examined the impact of a brief waiting room-based intervention about DUFB on program utilization and produce consumption. STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal, repeated measures, quasi-experimental trial. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: SNAP-enrolled adults at a health center in a low-income, racially and ethnically diverse area of Southeast Michigan. INTERVENTION: Participants received a brief explanation of DUFB, written program materials, a map highlighting market locations and hours, and an initial $10 market voucher. DUFB use and produce consumption were measured through four surveys over 5 months (August 2014-January 2015). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included DUFB use and fruit and vegetable consumption (analyses conducted in 2015-2016). RESULTS: A total of 302 eligible adults were identified, and 177 (59%) enrolled. One hundred twenty-seven (72%) completed all surveys. At baseline, 57% of participants reported shopping at a farmers market within the last year; 18% had previously used DUFB. By the end of the DUFB season, participants were significantly more likely to report DUFB use than at baseline (AOR=19.2, 95% CI=10.3, 35.5, p<0.001), with 69% of participants reporting use of DUFB at least once, and 34% reporting use of DUFB three or more times. Adjusted fruit and vegetable consumption increased from baseline by 0.65 servings/day (95% CI=0.37, 0.93, p<0.001) at 3 months, and remained 0.62 servings/day (95% CI=0.32, 0.92, p<0.001) higher than baseline 2 months post-DUFB season. CONCLUSIONS: A brief clinic-based intervention was associated with a nearly fourfold increase in uptake of a SNAP incentive program, as well as clinically and statistically significant increases in produce consumption. Results suggested sustained behavior change even once the financial incentive was no longer available. Providing information about healthy food incentives is a low-cost, easily implemented intervention that may increase produce consumption among low-income patients.