Who is providing contraception care in the United States? An observational study of the contraception workforce.

BACKGROUND: Contraception care is essential to providing comprehensive healthcare; however, little is known nationally about the contraception workforce. Previous research has examined the supply, distribution, and adequacy of the health workforce providing contraception services, but this research has faced a series of data limitations, relying on surveys or focusing on a subset of practitioners and resulting in an incomplete picture of contraception practitioners in the United States. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to construct a comprehensive database of the contraceptive workforce in the United States that provides the following 6 types of highly effective contraception: intrauterine device, implant, shot (depot medroxyprogesterone acetate), oral contraception, hormonal patch, and vaginal ring. In addition, we aimed to examine the difference in supply, distribution, the types of contraception services offered, and Medicaid participation. STUDY DESIGN: We constructed a national database of contraceptive service providers using multiple data sets: IQVIA prescription claims, preadjudicated medical claims, and the OneKey healthcare provider data set; the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System data set; and the Census Bureau's American Community Survey data on population demographics. All statistical analyses were descriptive, including chi-squared tests for groupwise differences and pairwise post hoc tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Although 73.1% of obstetrician-gynecologists and 72.6% of nurse-midwives prescribed the pill, patch, or ring, only 51.4% of family medicine physicians, 32.4% of pediatricians, and 19.8% of internal medicine physicians do so. The ratio of all primary care providers prescribing contraception to the female population of reproductive age (ages, 15-44 years) varied substantially across states, with a range of 27.9 providers per 10,000 population in New Jersey to 74.2 providers per 10,000 population in Maine. In addition, there are substantial differences across states for Medicaid acceptance. Of the obstetrician-gynecologists providing contraception, the percentage of providers who prescribe contraception to Medicaid patients ranged from 83.9% (District of Columbia) to 100% (North Dakota); for family medicine physicians, it ranged from 49.7% (Florida) to 91.1% (Massachusetts); and for internal medicine physicians, it ranged from 25.0% (Texas) to 75.9% (Delaware). For in-person contraception, there were large differences in the proportion of providers offering the 3 different contraceptive method types (intrauterine device, implant, and shot) by provider specialty. CONCLUSION: This study found a significant difference in the distribution, types of contraception, and Medicaid participation of the contraception workforce. In addition to obstetrician-gynecologists and nurse-midwives, family medicine physicians, internal medicine physicians, pediatricians, advanced practice nurses, and physician assistants are important contraception providers. However, large gaps remain in the provision of highly effective services such as intrauterine devices and implants. Future research should examine provider characteristics, programs, and policies associated with the provision of different contraception services.

Implementation of Lifestyle Modification Program Focusing on Physical Activity and Dietary Habits in a Large Group, Community-Based Setting.

BACKGROUND: Lifestyle modification programs improve several health-related behaviors, including physical activity (PA) and nutrition. However, few of these programs have been expanded to impact a large number of individuals in one setting at one time. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine whether a PA- and nutrition-based lifestyle modification program could be effectively conducted using a large group format in a community-based setting. METHOD: One hundred twenty-one participants enrolled in a 16-week, community-based lifestyle modification program and separated in small teams of 13 to 17 individuals. Height, weight, fruit and vegetable (FAV) consumption, physical fitness, and several psychosocial measures were assessed before and after the program. RESULTS: Significant improvements in 6-minute walk distance (+68.3 m; p < .001), chair stands (+6.7 repetitions; p < .001), FAV servings (+1.8 servings/day; p < .001), body weight (-3.2 lbs; p < .001), as well as PA social support and eating habits self-efficacy were observed. Our lifestyle modification program was also successful in shifting participants to higher levels of stages of change for nutrition and PA, increasing overall levels of self-efficacy for healthy eating, and improving levels of social support for becoming more active. CONCLUSIONS: A lifestyle modification program can be successfully implemented in a community setting using a large group format to improve PA and FAV attitudes and behaviors.