Abortion Training in Family Medicine Residency Programs: A National Survey of Program Directors 5 Months After the Dobbs Decision.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Routine abortion training during family medicine (FM) residency leads to higher rates of postresidency provision; increased availability of abortion care in the FM setting could greatly improve access. Especially in the post-Dobbs context, understanding the landscape of abortion training in US family medicine residency programs (FMRPs) is critical. METHODS: We invited all directors of US FMRPs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education to complete a larger omnibus online survey that included questions on abortion training. We compiled descriptive statistics and conducted χ2 tests and multivariate regression analyses to detect associations with abortion training. RESULTS: The response rate was 42% (N=286). Nineteen percent of programs had routine medication abortion (MAB) training and 10% had routine aspiration training. In addition, 58% of programs offered elective MAB training and 52% offered elective aspiration training. In multivariate regression, the presence of abortion training was associated with a program having 31 or more residents, being in a state with protected abortion access, not having a Catholic affiliation, and having a program director who believed abortion training should be routine in FMRPs. CONCLUSIONS: While more than half of responding FMRPs reported some abortion training, much of it was elective, and 40% of programs lacked abortion training completely. Although abortion training is severely limited or prohibited in states with abortion bans, more training opportunities in the states where abortion is possible could increase access to abortion within primary care.

Abortion Provision by Family Physicians After Integrated Opt-Out Training in Residency.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Reproductive Health Education In Family Medicine(RHEDI) supports family medicine residency programs to establish a required rotation in sexual and reproductive health (SRH), including abortion. We evaluated long-term training effects by examining the practice patterns of family physicians 2 to 6 years after residency graduation, to determine whether and how the practices and abortion provision of those with enhanced SRH training differ from those who did not receive this training. METHODS: We invited 1,949 family physicians who completed residency training between 2010 and 2018 to complete an anonymous online survey about residency training and current provision of SRH services. RESULTS: We received 714 completed surveys, a 36.6% response rate. Of those who received routine abortion training during residency (n=445), 24% had provided abortion after graduation, significantly more than the 13% providing abortion who had not received routine training during residency, and much higher than the 3% provision rate found in a recent representative study. Abortion-trained respondents were also more likely than the comparison group to have provided other SRH care. For both medication and procedural abortion, respondents who trained in the family medicine setting were significantly more likely to have provided abortion after residency than those who trained only in dedicated abortion clinics (31% vs 18%, and 33% vs 13%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Abortion training during family medicine residency is strongly linked to postresidency abortion provision, and is crucial in preparing family physicians to meet the full range of their patients' reproductive health care needs.

Abortion Provision Among Family Physicians Underrepresented in Medicine.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Workforce diversity in primary care is critical for improved health outcomes and mitigation of inequities. However, little is known about the racial and ethnic identities, training histories, and practice patterns of family physicians who provide abortions. METHODS: Family physicians who graduated from residency programs with routine abortion training from 2015 through 2018 completed an anonymous electronic cross-sectional survey. We measured abortion training, intentions to provide abortion, and practice patterns, and examined differences between underrepresented in medicine (URM) and non-URM physicians using χ2 tests and binary logistic regression. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-eight respondents completed the survey (39% response rate), 17% of whom were URM. Similar percentages of URM and non-URM respondents had abortion training and had intended to provide abortions. However, fewer URMs reported providing procedural abortion in their postresidency practice (6% vs 19%, P=.03) and providing abortion in the past year (6% vs 20%, P=.023). In adjusted analyses, URMs were less likely to have provided abortions after residency (OR=.383, P=.03) and in the past year (OR=.217, P=.02) compared to non-URMs. Of the 16 noted barriers to provision, few differences were evident between groups on the indicators measured. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in postresidency abortion provision existed between URM and non-URM family physicians despite similar training and intentions to provide. Examined barriers do not explain these differences. Further research on the unique experiences of URM physicians in abortion care is needed to then consider which strategies for building a more diverse workforce should be employed.

Patient concerns about accessing sexual and reproductive health services outside of primary care: A survey in rural and urban settings in the Pacific Northwest.

OBJECTIVES: While primary care providers are a major source of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services in the United States, particularly in rural areas, not all primary care settings offer a full range of SRH services. We aimed to understand primary care patient concerns regarding accessing SRH services, including abortion care, outside of their primary care clinic and if those concerns differed by urban or rural setting. STUDY DESIGN: An anonymous survey was distributed over a 2-week period between December 2019 to March 2020 to all adult patients in four primary care clinics in Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming. The survey assessed patient concerns regarding accessing SRH services outside of their primary care clinic and their willingness to travel to access SRH services. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 69% (745/1086). Over 85% of respondents identified at least one concern to seeking SRH services outside of a primary care setting, with cost, insurance coverage, length of wait time, and lack of an established relationship being the most frequently reported concerns. A majority of respondents were willing to travel a maximum of 1 hour for most SRH services. Respondents from rural-serving clinics were significantly more likely to be willing to travel longer amounts of time for medication abortion, aspiration abortion, and intrauterine device placement. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight that a majority of both urban and rural primary care patients have concerns regarding accessing SRH services outside of their primary care clinic and are unwilling to travel more than 1 hour to access most SRH services. IMPLICATIONS: A majority of primary care patients have concerns regarding accessing SRH services outside of primary care settings. Health care policy changes should aim to strengthen the SRH services available in primary care settings to alleviate the burdens primary care patients face in accessing SRH services outside of their primary care clinic, particularly for rural populations.

Patient opinions on sexual and reproductive health services in primary care in rural and urban clinics.

OBJECTIVES: Primary care providers are a major source of sexual and reproductive health care in the United States, particularly in rural areas, and not all providers offer the same services. This study aimed to understand patient preferences and expectations around reproductive health services including abortion care in a primary care setting and if those expectations differed by urban or rural setting. STUDY DESIGN: An anonymous survey was distributed to all patients 18 years or older in 4 primary care clinics in Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming over a 2-week period. The survey asked patients about which reproductive health services should be available in primary care. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 69% (745/1086). For all queried reproductive health services except for aspiration abortion, the majority of respondents reported that primary care clinics should have that service available. Forty-two percent of respondents reported that aspiration abortion should be available in primary care. Overall, most respondents reported that medication abortion (58%) and miscarriage management (65%) should be available in primary care. More respondents in urban clinics thought IUD services (84% vs 71%), medication abortion (74% vs 37%), and aspiration abortion (52% vs 28%) should be accessible in primary care compared to those in rural-serving clinics. CONCLUSIONS: This study of 4 primary care clinics in Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming, spanning urban and rural settings, highlights that most patients desire contraception services and miscarriage management to be available in primary care. IMPLICATIONS: Increasing training may help meet patient desires for access to reproductive services in primary care, however, further exploration of barriers to this care is warranted. High rates of respondents desiring miscarriage management access highlights the need to train more primary care clinicians to provide full spectrum miscarriage management options.

Barriers to and Enablers of Abortion Provision for Family Physicians Trained in Abortion During Residency.

CONTEXT: Although some family medicine residency programs include routine opt-out training in early abortion, little is known about abortion provision by trainees after residency graduation. A better understanding of the barriers to and enablers of abortion provision by trained family physicians could improve residency training and shape other interventions to increase abortion provision and access. METHODS: Twenty-eight U.S. family physicians who had received abortion training during residency were interviewed in 2017, between two and seven years after residency graduation. The doctors, identified using databases of abortion-trained physicians maintained by residency programs, were recruited by e-mail. In phone interviews, they described their postresidency abortion provision experiences. All interviews were transcribed, coded and analyzed using Dedoose, and a social-ecological framework was employed to guide investigation and analysis. RESULTS: Although many of the physicians were motivated to provide abortion care, only a minority did so. Barriers to and enablers of abortion provision were found on all levels of the social-ecological model-legal, institutional, social and individual-and included state-specific laws and restrictions on federal funding; religious affiliation or policies prohibiting abortion within particular health systems; mentorship, colleagues' support and the stigma of being an abortion provider; and geographic location, time management and individuals' prioritization of abortion provision. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical training alone may not be sufficient for family medicine physicians to overcome the barriers to postresidency abortion provision. To increase abortion provision and access, organizations and advocates should work to strengthen enablers of provision, such as strong mentorship and support networks.

Patient Satisfaction with IUD Services in a School-Based Health Center: A Pilot Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the acceptability to and satisfaction of high school students receiving an intrauterine device (IUD) at a school-based health center (SBHC). DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTIONS, AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: In this prospective pilot study at a Bronx SBHC, adolescent patients who had an IUD inserted in the SBHC between November 2010 and June 2013 completed a self-administered survey on the day of IUD insertion and a follow-up survey within 6 months. The initial survey addressed patient sexual and contraceptive history, reasons for choosing the IUD, and the insertion experience, whereas the follow-up survey addressed IUD continuation and side effects. RESULTS: In all, 104 of 139 (75%) eligible patients agreed to participate, and 75 (72%) of those completed the follow-up survey. Respondents chose IUDs because they were long-lasting, effective, private, and easy to remember, and chose the SBHC for services because it was convenient, recommended, free, and a trusted setting. Participants rated their interactions with SBHC staff highly, and almost all described their procedure experience as somewhat or very acceptable. Of the respondents, 92% were still using the IUD at the time of the follow-up survey, with 32% stating that they were somewhat satisfied and 65% stating they were very satisfied with this method of contraception. CONCLUSION: Our research demonstrates that IUD services can be integrated into the SBHC setting with high rates of acceptability and satisfaction. Furthermore, SBHCs provide a unique and acceptable option for providing these services and have the potential to increase adolescents' contraceptive access and choice.

Integration of Onsite Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Services Into School-Based Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: With recent recommendations from professional organizations, long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) methods are considered appropriate first-line contraception for adolescents. Many school-based health centers (SBHCs) in New York City (NYC) have recently added onsite LARC insertion and management to their contraceptive options. We aimed to explore key elements needed to implement LARC training and services into the SBHC setting and to identify successful factors for program implementation. METHODS: Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with 19 providers and staff at 7 SBHCs in high schools in the Bronx and analyzed using Dedoose. RESULTS: Support and leadership from administration; comprehensive onsite training of providers and staff; developing an effective staffing model for procedure sessions; and patient-centered contraceptive counseling were 4 key themes named by respondents as crucial to the program implementation process. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating LARC services onsite at SBHCs is feasible and positively received by providers and staff. With good leadership, staffing, training, and appropriate contraceptive counseling, both SBHCs and other primary clinics that serve adolescents can integrate LARC insertion, removal, and management into routine contraceptive care. This in turn can increase youth access to these methods.

The Effects of Abortion Training on Family Medicine Residents' Clinical Experience.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: RHEDI, Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine, offers technical assistance and funding to family medicine residency programs to support integrated opt-out abortion and reproductive health training for residents. This study assessed the impact of this enhanced training on residents' reproductive health experience. METHODS: Investigator-developed pre- and post-surveys were administered online to 214 residents at 12 family medicine residency programs before and after their RHEDI training experience. Surveys addressed experience in contraception and abortion, attitudes around abortion provision, and post-residency intentions. Descriptive statistics were generated, and statistical tests were performed to assess changes after training. RESULTS: Surveys had a 90% response rate. After the RHEDI enhanced reproductive health rotation, residents reported increased experience in contraception provision, early pregnancy ultrasound, aspiration and medication abortion, and miscarriage management. After training, residents with experience in IUD insertion increased from 85% to 99%, and contraceptive implant insertion experience rose from 60% to 85%. Residents who had performed any abortions increased from 15% to 79%, and self-rated competency in abortion increased. Finally, almost all residents agreed that early abortion was within the scope of family medicine, and training confirmed residents' intentions to provide reproductive health services after residency. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated training in reproductive health, with an emphasis on abortion, increases residents' experience and underscores their understanding of the role of these services in family medicine. Increasing the number of family medicine residency programs that offer this training could help prepare family physicians to meet their patients' needs for reproductive health services.

"I Don't Want to Go Anywhere Else": Patient Experiences of Abortion in Family Medicine.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Prior studies have demonstrated that most women are comfortable with the option of receiving early abortion care in the family medicine setting, and patients who received early abortion care in this context report satisfaction with their experience. There are few qualitative studies, however, that explore abortion experiences in the family medicine setting. This study aimed to better understand influential factors in women's choices and experiences of their family medicine setting for abortion care. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 women who received early abortion care at an urban federally qualified health center offering full-spectrum family medicine. Transcripts were analyzed in NVivo, using editing and immersion/crystallization approaches. RESULTS: Women who received abortion care in this setting were highly satisfied. Though many were surprised when they learned abortion care was available, their responses were favorable, and their experiences were positive. Our results indicate that connection to the clinic setting and to the provider who performed the abortion created a context of trust and comfort. Further, women in our study appreciated the privacy offered by a general medical setting as well as the convenience and continuity of care afforded by accessing abortion care in their accustomed primary care setting. CONCLUSIONS: Women in our study reported high levels of satisfaction with care and would recommend this setting to others. In a context of increasing restrictions on abortion, family physicians are well-positioned to increase access by including abortion care in the range of reproductive health services offered in their primary care practice settings.