Training contraceptive providers to offer intrauterine devices and implants in contraceptive care: a cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: US unintended pregnancy rates remain high, and contraceptive providers are not universally trained to offer intrauterine devices and implants to women who wish to use these methods. OBJECTIVE: We sought to measure the impact of a provider training intervention on integration of intrauterine devices and implants into contraceptive care. STUDY DESIGN: We measured the impact of a continuing medical education-accredited provider training intervention on provider attitudes, knowledge, and practices in a cluster randomized trial in 40 US health centers from 2011 through 2013. Twenty clinics were randomly assigned to the intervention arm; 20 offered routine care. Clinic staff participated in baseline and 1-year surveys assessing intrauterine device and implant knowledge, attitudes, and practices. We used a difference-in-differences approach to compare changes that occurred in the intervention sites to changes in the control sites 1 year later. Prespecified outcome measures included: knowledge of patient eligibility for intrauterine devices and implants; attitudes about method safety; and counseling practices. We used multivariable regression with generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by clinic to examine intervention effects on provider outcomes 1 year later. RESULTS: Overall, we surveyed 576 clinic staff (314 intervention, 262 control) at baseline and/or 1-year follow-up. The change in proportion of providers who believed that the intrauterine device was safe was greater in intervention (60% at baseline to 76% at follow-up) than control sites (66% at both times) (adjusted odds ratio, 2.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-5.4). Likewise, for the implant, the proportion increased from 57-77% in intervention, compared to 61-65% in control sites (adjusted odds ratio, 2.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.44-4.59). The proportion of providers who believed they were experienced to counsel on intrauterine devices also increased in intervention (53-67%) and remained the same in control sites (60%) (adjusted odds ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.44), and for the implant increased more in intervention (41-62%) compared to control sites (48-50%) (adjusted odds ratio, 2.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-4.12). Knowledge scores of patient eligibility for intrauterine devices increased at intervention sites (from 0.77-0.86) 6% more over time compared to control sites (from 0.78-0.80) (adjusted coefficient, 0.058; 95% confidence interval, 0.003-0.113). Knowledge scores of eligibility for intrauterine device and implant use with common medical conditions increased 15% more in intervention (0.65-0.79) compared to control sites (0.67-0.66) (adjusted coefficient, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.21). Routine discussion of intrauterine devices and implants by providers in intervention sites increased significantly, 71-87%, compared to in control sites, 76-82% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-3.80). CONCLUSION: Professional guidelines encourage intrauterine device and implant competency for all contraceptive care providers. Integrating these methods into routine care is important for access. This replicable training intervention translating evidence into care had a sustained impact on provider attitudes, knowledge, and counseling practices, demonstrating significant changes in clinical care a full year after the training intervention.

Contraception after medication abortion in the United States: results from a cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how contraceptive choices and access differ for women having medication abortions compared to aspiration procedures can help to identify priorities for improved patient-centered postabortion contraceptive care. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the differences in contraceptive counseling, method choices, and use between medication and aspiration abortion patients. STUDY DESIGN: This subanalysis examines data from 643 abortion patients from 17 reproductive health centers in a cluster, randomized trial across the United States. We recruited participants aged 18-25 years who did not desire pregnancy and followed them for 1 year. We measured the effect of a full-staff contraceptive training and abortion type on contraceptive counseling, choice, and use with multivariable regression models, using generalized estimating equations for clustering. We used survival analysis with shared frailty to model actual intrauterine device and subdermal implant initiation over 1 year. RESULTS: Overall, 26% of participants (n = 166) had a medication abortion and 74% (n = 477) had an aspiration abortion at the enrollment visit. Women obtaining medication abortions were as likely as those having aspiration abortions to receive counseling on intrauterine devices or the implant (55%) and on a short-acting hormonal method (79%). The proportions of women choosing to use these methods (29% intrauterine device or implant, 58% short-acting hormonal) were also similar by abortion type. The proportions of women who actually used short-acting hormonal methods (71% medication vs 57% aspiration) and condoms or no method (20% vs 22%) within 3 months were not significantly different by abortion type. However, intrauterine device initiation over a year was significantly lower after the medication than the aspiration abortion (11 per 100 person-years vs 20 per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.89). Implant initiation rates were low and similar by abortion type (5 per 100 person-years vs 4 per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio, 2.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-6.59). In contrast to women choosing short-acting methods, relatively few of those choosing a long-acting method at enrollment, 34% of medication abortion patients and 53% of aspiration abortion patients, had one placed within 3 months. Neither differences in health insurance nor pelvic examination preferences by abortion type accounted for lower intrauterine device use among medication abortion patients. CONCLUSION: Despite similar contraceptive choices, fewer patients receiving medication abortion than aspiration abortion initiated intrauterine devices over 1 year of follow-up. Interventions to help patients receiving medication abortion to successfully return for intrauterine device placement are warranted. New protocols for same-day implant placement may also help patients receiving medication abortion and desiring a long-acting method to receive one.

Funding policies and postabortion long-acting reversible contraception: results from a cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Almost one-half of women having an abortion in the United States have had a previous procedure, which highlights a failure to provide adequate preventive care. Provision of intrauterine devices and implants, which have high upfront costs, can be uniquely challenging in the abortion care setting. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a study of a clinic-wide training intervention on long-acting reversible contraception and examined the effect of the intervention, insurance coverage, and funding policies on the use of long-acting contraceptives after an abortion. STUDY DESIGN: This subanalysis of a cluster, randomized trial examines data from the 648 patients who had undergone an abortion who were recruited from 17 reproductive health centers across the United States. The trial followed participants 18-25 years old who did not desire pregnancy for a year. We measured the effect of the intervention, health insurance, and funding policies on contraceptive outcomes, which included intrauterine device and implant counseling and selection at the abortion visit, with the use of logistic regression with generalized estimating equations for clustering. We used survival analysis to model the actual initiation of these methods over 1 year. RESULTS: Women who obtained abortion care at intervention sites were more likely to report intrauterine device and implant counseling (70% vs 41%; adjusted odds ratio, 3.83; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-6.19) and the selection of these methods (36% vs 21%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-3.21). However, the actual initiation of methods was similar between study arms (22/100 woman-years each; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.51). Health insurance and funding policies were important for the initiation of intrauterine devices and implants. Compared with uninsured women, those women with public health insurance had a far higher initiation rate (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-3.62). Women at sites that provide state Medicaid enrollees abortion coverage also had a higher initiation rate (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.88), as did those at sites with state mandates for private health insurance to cover contraception (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-3.07). Few of the women with private insurance used it to pay for the abortion (28%), but those who did initiated long-acting contraceptive methods at almost twice the rate as women who paid for it themselves or with donated funds (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-3.43). CONCLUSIONS: The clinic-wide training increased long-acting reversible contraceptive counseling and selection but did not change initiation for abortion patients. Long-acting method use after abortion was associated strongly with funding. Restrictions on the coverage of abortion and contraceptives in abortion settings prevent the initiation of desired long-acting methods.

Public Funding for Contraception, Provider Training, and Use of Highly Effective Contraceptives: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: We determined whether public funding for contraception was associated with long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) use when providers received training on these methods. METHODS: We evaluated the impact of a clinic training intervention and public funding on LARC use in a cluster randomized trial at 40 randomly assigned clinics across the United States (2011-2013). Twenty intervention clinics received a 4-hour training. Women aged 18 to 25 were enrolled and followed for 1 year (n = 1500: 802 intervention, 698 control). We estimated the effects of the intervention and funding sources on LARC initiation with Cox proportional hazards models with shared frailty. RESULTS: Women at intervention sites had higher LARC initiation than those at control (22 vs 18 per 100 person-years; adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] = 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04, 1.98). Participants receiving care at clinics with Medicaid family planning expansion programs had almost twice the initiation rate as those at clinics without (25 vs 13 per 100 person-years; AHR = 2.26; 95% CI = 1.59, 3.19). LARC initiation also increased among participants with public (AHR = 1.56; 95% CI = 1.09, 2.22) but not private health insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Public funding and provider training substantially improve LARC access.

Association of Travel Distance to Nearest Abortion Facility With Rates of Abortion.

Importance: Travel distance to abortion services varies widely in the US. Some evidence shows travel distance affects use of abortion care, but there is no national analysis of how abortion rate changes with travel distance. Objective: To examine the association between travel distance to the nearest abortion care facility and the abortion rate and to model the effect of reduced travel distance. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional geographic analysis used 2015 data on abortions by county of residence from 1948 counties in 27 states. Abortion rates were modeled using a spatial Poisson model adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, marital status, educational attainment, household poverty, nativity, and state abortion policies. Abortion rates for 3107 counties in the 48 contiguous states that were home to 62.5 million female residents of reproductive age (15-44 years) and changes under travel distance scenarios, including integration into primary care (<30 miles) and availability of telemedicine care (<5 miles), were estimated. Data were collected from April 2018 to October 2019 and analyzed from December 2019 to July 2020. Exposures: Median travel distance by car to the nearest abortion facility. Main Outcomes and Measures: US county abortion rate per 1000 female residents of reproductive age. Results: Among the 1948 counties included in the analysis, greater travel distances were associated with lower abortion rates in a dose-response manner. Compared with a median travel distance of less than 5 miles (median rate, 21.1 [range, 1.2-63.6] per 1000 female residents of reproductive age), distances of 5 to 15 miles (median rate, 12.2 [range, 0.5-23.4] per 1000 female residents of reproductive age; adjusted coefficient, -0.05 [95% CI, -0.07 to -0.03]) and 120 miles or more (median rate, 3.9 [range, 0-12.9] per 1000 female residents of reproductive age; coefficient, -0.73 [95% CI, -0.80 to -0.65]) were associated with lower rates. In a model of 3107 counties with 62.5 million female residents of reproductive age, 696 760 abortions were estimated (mean rate, 11.1 [range, 1.0-45.5] per 1000 female residents of reproductive age). If abortion were integrated into primary care, an additional 18 190 abortions (mean rate, 11.4 [range, 1.1-45.5] per 1000 female residents of reproductive age) were estimated. If telemedicine were widely available, an additional 70 920 abortions were estimated (mean rate, 12.3 [range, 1.4-45.5] per 1000 female residents of reproductive age). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that greater travel distances to abortion services are associated with lower abortion rates. The results indicate which geographic areas have insufficient access to abortion care. Modeling suggests that integrating abortion into primary care or making medication abortion care available by telemedicine may decrease unmet need.

Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Counseling and Use for Older Adolescents and Nulliparous Women.

PURPOSE: The majority of pregnancies during adolescence are unintended, and few adolescents use long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) due in part to health care providers' misconceptions about nulliparous women's eligibility for the intrauterine device. We examined differences in LARC counseling, selection, and initiation by age and parity in a study with a provider's LARC training intervention. METHODS: Sexually active women aged 18-25 years receiving contraceptive counseling (n = 1,500) were enrolled at 20 interventions and 20 control clinics and followed for 12 months. We assessed LARC counseling and selection, by age and parity, with generalized estimated equations with robust standard errors. We assessed LARC use over 1 year with Cox proportional hazards models with shared frailty for clustering. RESULTS: Women in the intervention had increased LARC counseling, selection, and initiation, with similar effects among older adolescent and nulliparous women, and among young adult and parous women. Across study arms, older adolescents were as likely as young adults to receive LARC counseling (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = .85; 95% confidence interval [CI]: .63-1.15), select LARC (aOR = .86; 95% CI: .64-1.17), and use LARC methods (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = .94; 95% CI: .69-1.27). Nulliparous women were less likely to receive counseling (aOR = .57; 95% CI: .42-.79) and to select LARC (aOR = .53; 95% CI: .37-.75) than parous women, and they initiated LARC methods at lower rates (aHR = .65; 95% CI: .48-.90). Nulliparous women had similar rates of implant initiation but lower rates of intrauterine device initiation (aHR = .59; 95% CI: .41-.85). CONCLUSIONS: Continued efforts should be made to improve counseling and access to LARC methods for nulliparous women of all ages.

Counseling for IUDs and implants: are health educators and clinicians on the same page?

CONTEXT: Low knowledge of long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) and restrictive counseling practices have been documented among contraceptive care clinicians. However, little is known about health educators' counseling on LARC, how their practices compare with clinicians' and their specific training needs. METHODS: A survey conducted in 2011-2012 assessed knowledge and practices related to LARC counseling and provision among 410 staff at 40 Planned Parenthood clinics. Clinicians' and health educators' knowledge and practices were compared via chi-square tests; use of evidence-based criteria was assessed in multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: At least half of both types of staff routinely discussed LARC with clients, and nearly all considered the methods safe. Health educators considered a smaller proportion of clients candidates for LARC than did clinicians (57% vs. 77%), and they were less likely to consider IUDs for teenagers (79% vs. 96%), nulliparous women (82% vs. 98%) and unmarried clients (90% vs. 99%). In a multivariable model, health educators were less likely than clinicians to counsel clients using the least restrictive evidence-based criteria (odds ratio, 0.1). Sixty-four percent of health educators and 40% of clinicians desired additional LARC training. CONCLUSION: Even in clinics that specialize in reproductive health care, health educators are less likely than clinicians to apply current evidence-based criteria in counseling about LARC. To provide evidence-based contraceptive counseling, health educators need training on LARC eligibility and indications.

Access to levonorgestrel emergency contraception: science versus federal politics.

Past US FDA decisions about emergency contraception (EC) have been subject to undue political influence, and last year's barring of over-the-counter access to Plan B One-Step(®) for those under the age of 17 years is no exception. The US Department of Health and Human Services cited insufficient data on EC use for females aged 11-12 years. These youngest adolescents, however, rarely need EC: data from California (USA) show that in 2009, fewer than one in 10,000 females under the age of 13 years received EC. Maintaining barriers to safe and effective EC is not medically necessary and conflicts with national goals to decrease teenage and unintended pregnancies.

Postabortion contraception: qualitative interviews on counseling and provision of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods.

CONTEXT: Long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods (IUDs and implants) are the most effective and cost-effective methods for women. Although they are safe to place immediately following an abortion, most clinics do not offer this service, in part because of the increased cost. METHODS: In 2009, telephone interviews were conducted with 20 clinicians and 24 health educators at 25 abortion care practices across the country. A structured topic guide was used to explore general practice characteristics; training, knowledge and attitudes about LARC; and postabortion LARC counseling and provision. Transcripts of the digitally recorded interviews were coded and analyzed using inductive and deductive processes. RESULTS: Respondents were generally positive about the safety and effectiveness of LARC methods; those working in clinics that offered LARC methods immediately postabortion tended to have greater knowledge about LARC than others, and to perceive fewer risks and employ more evidence-based practices. LARC methods often were not included in contraceptive counseling for women at high risk of repeat unintended pregnancy, including young and nulliparous women. Barriers to provision were usually expressed in terms of financial cost--to patients and clinics--and concerns about impact on the smooth flow of clinic procedures. Education and encouragement from professional colleagues regarding LARC, as well as training and adequate reimbursement for devices, were considered critical to changing clinical practice to include immediate postabortion LARC provision. CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence about the safety and cost-effectiveness of postabortion LARC provision, many clinics are not offering it because of financial and logistical concerns, resulting in missed opportunities for preventing repeat unintended pregnancies.

Increased use of intrauterine contraception in California, 1997 to 2007.

BACKGROUND: Modern intrauterine contraception (IUC) is safe and highly effective, but is used by fewer than 4% of women in the United States. Once recommended only for women with at least one child, it is now recommended for most women regardless of parity or age. METHODS: This study used data representative of California women from 10 years of the California Women's Health Survey (1997-2007) to describe how IUC users differ from women using other contraceptives, and assess changes in IUC users' characteristics over time. FINDINGS: Overall 4.9% of women in California used IUC. Multivariable logistic regression modeling showed IUC users were more likely to be born outside the United States (odds ratio [OR], 1.7), have a college degree (OR, 1.5) or postgraduate degree (OR, 2.2), and be married (OR, 2.6) or in an unmarried partnership (OR, 2.4). IUC users were 71% less likely to be nulliparous (OR, 0.29). Use of IUC almost doubled over the study period from 4.0% to 7.2%, and this growth was accompanied by significant changes in user characteristics: Young women, women born in the United States, women without a college degree, and Asian women experienced the greatest increases. IUC use among nulliparous women did not increase. CONCLUSION: IUC use in California is higher than the national average and growing. We found higher IUC use among ever-married women and foreign-born women, and disproportionately low use among nulliparous women. Efforts to inform women of IUC's high effectiveness and safety, as well as efforts to ensure that health care providers have the necessary clinical skills, are timely and important.

Contraceptive policies affect post-abortion provision of long-acting reversible contraception.

BACKGROUND: Placement of long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) - intrauterine devices (IUDs) and the implant - directly after an abortion provides immediate contraceptive protection and has been proven safe. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a survey of National Abortion Federation member facilities (n=326; response rate 75%) to assess post-abortion contraceptive practices. Using multivariable logistic regression, we measured variations in provision of long-acting contraception by clinic factors and state contraceptive laws and policies. RESULTS: The majority (69%) of providers surveyed offered long-acting methods, but fewer offered immediate post-abortion placement of intrauterine devices (36%) or implants (17%). Most patients were provided with contraception; 6.6% chose LARC methods offering the highest level of protection. Post-abortion provision of these methods was lower in stand-alone abortion clinics (p ≤.001), but higher with recent clinician training (p ≤.001) and in the absence of clinic flow barriers (p ≤.001). State policies had a significant impact on how women paid for contraception and the likelihood of LARC use. Patient use was higher in states with contraceptive coverage mandates (p ≤.01) or Medicaid family planning expansion programs (p ≤.05). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the most effective contraceptives immediately post-abortion is rare in the United States. State policies, high cost to patients, and the ongoing need for clinician training in the methods hinder provision and patient uptake. Contraceptive policies are an important component of abortion patient access to the most effective methods.