Search

Background: Young adults, including college students, have higher rates of chlamydia than the general population. Patient-delivered partner therapy (PDPT) is a partner treatment option for sex partners of individuals diagnosed with chlamydia or gonorrhea. We examined college health center use of PDPT in a national sample of colleges.Methods: During 2014 to 2015, we collected data from 482 colleges and universities (55% of 885 surveyed), weighting responses by institutional characteristics abstracted from a national database (eg, 2-year vs 4-year status). We asked whether the school had a student health center and which sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services were offered. We also assessed the legal and perceived legal status of PDPT in states where schools were located. We then estimated PDPT availability at student health centers and measured associations with legal status and SRH services.Results: Most colleges (n = 367) reported having a student health center; PDPT was available at 36.6% of health centers and associated with perceived legality of PDPT in the state in which the college was located (odds ratio [OR], 4.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-18.28). Patient-delivered partner therapy was significantly associated with availability of SRH services, including sexually transmitted disease diagnosis and treatment of STI (56.2% vs 1.1%), gynecological services (60.3% vs 12.2%), and contraceptive services (57.8% vs 7.7%) (all P < .001). Compared with schools taking no action, PDPT was more likely to be available at schools that notified partners directly (OR, 8.29; 95% CI, 1.28-53.85), but not schools that asked patients to notify partners (OR, 3.47; 95% CI, 0.97-12.43).Conclusions: PDPT was more likely to be available in colleges that offered SRH services and where staff believed PDPT was legal. Further research could explore more precise conditions under which PDPT is used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In October, 2015, China's one-child policy was replaced by a universal two-child policy. The effects of the new policy are inevitably speculative, but predictions can be made based on recent trends. The population increase will be relatively small, peaking at 1·45 billion in 2029 (compared with a peak of 1·4 billion in 2023 if the one-child policy continued). The new policy will allow almost all Chinese people to have their preferred number of children. The benefits of the new policy include: a large reduction in abortions of unapproved pregnancies, virtual elimination of the problem of unregistered children, and a more normal sex ratio. All of these effects should improve health outcomes. Effects of the new policy on the shrinking workforce and rapid population ageing will not be evident for two decades. In the meantime, more sound policy actions are needed to meet the social, health, and care needs of the elderly population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on several aspects of Medicaid coverage for family planning in the U.S. It mentions ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in the "Does v. Gillespie" court case. It also mentions that the Eighth Circuit has the power to reconsider and change its ruling, upon an appeal from the plaintiffs and several U.S. states have sought to illegally exclude planned parenthood clinics from Medicaid.

The article offers information on the services provided by the nonprofit organization Planned Parenthood in need to improve women's health in the U.S.. Topics discussed include plans of leaders of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists regarding its intensions to defund Planned Parenthood, effects of defunding Planned Parenthood on many women, services provided by Planned Parenthood like health services, economic security and child planning.

CONTEXT The federal Title X grant program provides funding for family planning services for low-income women and men. In California, all clinics receiving Title X funds participate in the state's family planning program, Family PACT, along with other public and private providers. The relative extent to which Title X-funded clinics and other Family PACT providers have incorporated enhancements beyond their core medical services has never been studied. METHODS In 2010, a survey was sent to public- and private-sector Family PACT clinicians to assess whether funding streams were associated with the availability of special services: extended clinic hours, outreach to vulnerable populations, services for clients not proficient in English and use of advanced clinic-based technologies. Bivariate and logistic regression analyses controlling for potentially confounding factors were conducted. RESULTS Greater proportions of Title X-funded clinics than of other public and private providers had Spanish-speaking unlicensed clinical staff (89% vs. 71% and 58%, respectively) and Spanish-language signs (95% vs. 85% and 82%). Title X-funded providers were more likely than other public providers to offer extended clinic hours, provide outreach to at least three vulnerable or hard-to-reach populations, and use three or more advanced technologies (odds ratios, 2.0-2.9). CONCLUSIONS Compared with other Family PACT providers, clinics that receive Title X funding have implemented greater infrastructure enhancements to promote access and improve the quality of service for underserved populations. This may be because Title X-funded providers have more financial opportunities to provide the array of services that best respond to their clients' needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The medical duty of confidentiality represents a key element for the provision of reproductive and sexual health services. In some Latin American countries, such as Argentina and Peru, the legal systems impose—or are interpreted as imposing—on health professionals the duty of confidentiality, but also the duty to report the commission of a public order offense that they know about owing to the practicing of their profession. In these countries, the conflicting duties and the criminalization of abortion cause severe public health and human rights problems when health professionals assist their patients for post-abortion treatment. Typically, patients are deterred from seeking prompt medical care, and their privacy, autonomy, and dignity are violated. A 2010 ruling from the Supreme Court of Argentina and a 2004 ruling from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights emerge as important instruments that grant a more adequate protection of medical confidentiality. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Since the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development, the human rights movement has embraced the concept of reproductive rights. These are often pursued, however, by means to which objection is taken. Some conservative political and religious forces continue to resist implementation of several means of protecting and advancing reproductive rights. Individuals'' rights to grant and to deny consent to medical procedures affecting their reproductive health and confidentiality have been progressively advanced. However, access to contraceptive services, while not necessarily opposed, is unjustifiably obstructed in some settings. Rights to lawful abortion have been considerably liberalized by legislative and judicial decisions, although resistance remains. Courts are increasingly requiring that lawful services be accommodated under transparent conditions of access and of legal protection. The conflict between rights of resort to lawful reproductive health services and to conscientious objection to participation is resolved by legal duties to refer patients to non-objecting providers. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article presents a comparison between U.S. President Donald Trump's record and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's proposals on a range of major health care issues. Topics covered include Trump's downplaying of the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, his proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) with weakened protections for preexisting conditions, and his failure to put in policies to address high drug prices.

Abstract: Adolescents, defined by WHO as 10 to 19 years old, can give independent consent for reproductive health services if their capacities for understanding have sufficiently evolved. The international Convention on the Rights of the Child, almost universally ratified, limits parental powers, and duties, by adolescents'' “evolving capacities” for self-determination. Legal systems may recognize “mature minors” as enjoying adult rights of medical consent, even when consent to sexual relations does not absolve partners of criminal liability; their consent does not make the adolescents offenders. There is usually no chronological “age of consent” for medical care, but a condition of consent, meaning capacity for understanding. Like adults, mature minors enjoy confidentiality and the right to treatment according to their wishes rather than their best interests. Minors incapable of self-determination may grant or deny assent to treatment for which guardians provide consent. Emancipated minors'' self-determination may also be recognized, for instance on marriage or default of adults'' guardianship. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]