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.