Search

BackgroundUnderstanding 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.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate the differences in contraceptive counseling, method choices, and use between medication and aspiration abortion patients.Study designThis 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.ResultsOverall, 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.ConclusionDespite 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.

ObjectiveNurse practitioners (NPs) provide frontline care in women's health, including contraception, an essential preventive service. Their importance for contraceptive care will grow, with healthcare reforms focused on affordable primary care. This study assessed practice and training needs to prepare NPs to offer high-efficacy contraceptives - intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants.MethodA US nationally representative sample of nurse practitioners in primary care and women's health was surveyed in 2009 (response rate 69%, n=586) to assess clinician knowledge and practices, guided by the CDC US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use.ResultsTwo-thirds of women's health NPs (66%) were trained in IUD insertions, compared to 12% of primary care NPs. Contraceptive counseling that routinely included IUDs was low overall (43%). Nurse practitioners used overly restrictive patient eligibility criteria, inconsistent with CDC guidelines. Insertion training (aOR=2.4, 95%CI: 1.10 5.33) and knowledge of patient eligibility (aOR=2.9, 95%CI: 1.91 4.32) were associated with IUD provision. Contraceptive implant provision was low: 42% of NPs in women's health and 10% in primary care. Half of NPs desired training in these methods.ConclusionNurse practitioners have an increasingly important position in addressing high unintended pregnancy in the US, but require specific training in long-acting reversible contraceptives.

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.

Background and objectivesFamily physicians and obstetrician-gynecologists provide much of contraceptive care in the United States and have a shared goal in preventing unintended pregnancy among patients. We assessed their competency to offer women contraceptives of the highest efficacy levels.MethodsWe conducted a national probability survey of family physicians and obstetrician-gynecologists (n=1,192). We measured counseling and provision practices of intrauterine contraception and used multivariable regression analysis to evaluate the importance of evidence-based knowledge to contraceptive care.ResultsFamily physicians reported seeing fewer contraceptive patients per week than did obstetrician-gynecologists and were less likely to report sufficient time for counseling. While 95% of family physicians believed patients were receptive to learning about intrauterine contraception, fewer than half offered counseling or the method. Only half were trained to competence to offer intrauterine contraception, while virtually all obstetrician-gynecologists were. Both family physicians and obstetrician-gynecologists were unlikely to have adequate knowledge of the women who would be good candidates for intrauterine contraception-as gauged by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Medical Eligibility Criteria for contraception-and consequently did not offer the method to a wide range of eligible patients.ConclusionsMost family physicians providing contraceptive care were not offering methods with top-tier effectiveness, although they reported interest in updating contraceptive skills through training. Obstetrician-gynecologists had technical skills to offer intrauterine contraception but still required education on patient selection. Greater hands-on training opportunities for family physicians, and complementary education on eligible method candidates for obstetrician-gynecologists, can increase access to intrauterine contraception by women seeking contraceptive care.

Driven by increasing consumption and population numbers, human demands are depleting natural resources essential to support human life, causing damage to crop lands, fresh water supplies, fisheries, and forests, and driving climate change. Within this century, world population could increase by as little as 15% or by more than 50%, depending largely on how we respond. We must face the challenge of accommodating these additional people at the same time as virtually eliminating the use of fossil fuels and other activities that generate greenhouse gases, reversing environmental degradation and supporting improved living standards for billions of impoverished people. The response to this challenge is handicapped by a lack of common understanding and an integrated agenda among those contributing to the response. This report offers a strategy to protect natural systems and improve welfare through expansion of reproductive justice, a concept that includes family planning, reproductive health, and gender equity, and preservation of the environment and climate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study on the use of copper intrauterine device (IUD) for emergency contraception. It presents findings that show the low level of recommendation by clinicians for the copper IUD and IUD insertions despite its high efficacy and contraceptive benefits. The study advised that patient-centered and high-quality care for emergency contraception should include a discussion of the most effective method.

Abstract: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor in response to the article "Addressing Global Health, Economic and Environmental Problems Through Family Planning," by J. Joseph Speidel and Richard A. Grossman published in a 2011 issue and a reply by the authors to this are presented.

The article discusses the highlights of the conference "The World in 2050" held at the University of California in Berkeley, on January 23 and 24, 2009. The conference was attended by an international group of scientists. They discussed various issues related to global population growth, including its impact on fossil fuel and natural resources consumption, the future of family planning and the need for contraception in low-income countries.

Focuses on the impact of deficient family planning services on women's health. Association between poverty and health; Percentage of maternal mortality caused by unsafe abortion; Amount of health care cost generated by chlamydial infections.

A list of participants of the conference "The World in 2050" held at the University of California in Berkeley, on January 23 and 24, 2009 is presented.

Abstract: This synopsis of teens and OTC access is part of a series of briefs on emergency contraception, which address the following issues as they relate to EC: Is emergency contraception safe? Is emergency contraception effective at preventing pregnancy? Does emergency contraception promote sexual risk-taking? Is emergency contraception cost-effective? Does emergency contraception cause abortion? The full series can be found at http://crhrp.ucsf.edu. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: Intrauterine contraception is used by many women worldwide, however, it is rarely used in the United States. Although available at no cost from the state family planning program for low-income women in California, only 1.3% of female patients obtain intrauterine contraceptives annually. This study assessed knowledge and practice patterns of practitioners regarding intrauterine contraception., Methods: We conducted a survey among physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants (n=1,246) serving more than 100 contraceptive patients per year in the California State family planning program. The response rate was 65% (N=816). We used multiple logistic regression to measure the association of knowledge with clinical practice among different provider types., Results: Forty percent of providers did not offer intrauterine contraception to contraceptive patients, and 36% infrequently provided counseling, although 92% thought their patients were receptive to learning about the method. Regression analyses showed younger physicians and those trained in residency were more likely to offer insertions. Fewer than half of clinicians considered nulliparous women (46%) and postabortion women (39%) to be appropriate candidates. Evidence-based views of the types of patients who could be safely provided with intrauterine contraception were associated with more counseling and method provision, as well as with knowledge of bleeding patterns for the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and copper devices., Conclusion: Prescribing practices reflected the erroneous belief that intrauterine contraceptives are appropriate only for a restricted set of women. The scientific literature shows intrauterine contraceptives can be used safely by many women, including postabortion patients. Results revealed a need for training on updated insertion guidelines and method-specific side effects, including differences between hormonal and nonhormonal devices., Level of Evidence: III.