Search

Rachel E Zigler,1 Jeffrey F Peipert,1,2 Qiuhong Zhao,1 Ragini Maddipati,1 Colleen McNicholas1 1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Clinical Research and Family Planning, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, 2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA Background: The objective of the study was to estimate the personal usage of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) among obstetrics and gynecology (Ob/Gyn) residents in the United States and compare usage between programs with and without a Ryan Residency Training Program (Ryan Program), an educational program implemented to enhance resident training in family planning. Materials and methods: We performed a web-based, cross-sectional survey to explore contraceptive use among Ob/Gyn residents between November and December 2014. Thirty-two Ob/Gyn programs were invited to participate, and 24 programs (75%) agreed to participate. We divided respondents into two groups based on whether or not their program had a Ryan Program. We excluded male residents without a current female partner as well as residents who were currently pregnant or trying to conceive. We evaluated predictors of LARC use using bivariate analysis and multivariable Poisson regression. Results: Of the 638 residents surveyed, 384 (60.2%) responded to our survey and 351 were eligible for analysis. Of those analyzed, 49.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 44.1%, 54.5%) reported current LARC use: 70.0% of residents in Ryan Programs compared to 26.8% in non-Ryan Programs (RRadj 2.14, 95% CI 1.63–2.80). Residents reporting a religious affiliation were less likely to use LARC than those who described themselves as non-religious (RRadj 0.76, 95% CI 0.64–0.92). Of residents reporting LARC use, 91% were using the levonorgestrel intrauterine device. Conclusion: LARC use in this population of women’s health specialists is substantially higher than in the general population (49% vs. 12%). Ob/Gyn residents in programs affiliated with the Ryan Program were more likely to use LARC. Keywords: contraception, education, family planning, LARC, Ob/Gyn residents

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the positive margin rate associated with cervical conization among women who are seropositive for human immunodeficiency virus with that among women who are seronegative.Study Design: This was a cross-sectional study of 245 women who underwent cervical conization for the following indications: biopsy-proven cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3, abnormal endocervical curettage specimen, cytologic-histologic examination discrepancy, persistent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1, or abnormal cytologic characteristics with inadequate colposcopic examination.Results: Twenty-two (47.8%) of 46 women who were seropositive for human immunodeficiency virus and 65 (32.7%) of 199 women who were seronegative had positive cone biopsy specimen margins. In a multivariable logistic regression the human immunodeficiency virus-seropositive women had a 2-fold increased risk of having a positive cone biopsy margin (odds ratio, 2.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-4.76).Conclusion: If the presence of positive cone biopsy specimen margins represents the potential for disease progression, then our findings of a positive margin rate of nearly 50% in a human immunodeficiency virus-positive population may argue against the kind of conservative management of colposcopic follow-up that has been proposed for immunocompetent women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Our purpose was to compare the strength of indication for cesarean delivery for 2 groups of patients who had undergone cesarean delivery-those treated by physicians in private or group practice and those treated by a clinic or resident service.Study Design: From records of 119 cesarean deliveries performed in 1992, data concerning patient history, labor course and management, fetal monitor tracings, and indications for cesarean delivery were extracted, summarized, and presented to 3 reviewers. Each reviewer rated the strength of indication for cesarean delivery on a 10-point visual analog scale and specified how often they would have chosen an alternative management plan. Reviewers were blinded to the research hypothesis and to patient age, type of provider, and insurance status.Results: Using a multivariate linear regression model to adjust for differences in age and indication for cesarean delivery, we found that strength of indication scores were higher among patients treated by a resident service than among those treated by private physicians (P <.0001) and that an alternative action plan was more often suggested for deliveries managed by private physicians (P <.0001).Conclusions: Among women who underwent cesarean delivery, the strength of indication judged by a panel of reviewers not involved with the patient's care was stronger among resident-treated patients than among cases treated by private physicians. Although there are several possible explanations, the findings may suggest that physicians in private practice use different criteria than do resident physicians for deciding to perform a cesarean. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]