Contraception after medication abortion in the United States: results from a cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Understanding 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. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the differences in contraceptive counseling, method choices, and use between medication and aspiration abortion patients. STUDY DESIGN: This 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. RESULTS: Overall, 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. CONCLUSION: Despite 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.

A view from Cheyenne Mountain: Generation III's perspective of Keystone III.

In October 2000 the family of family medicine convened the Keystone III conference at Cheyenne Mountain Resort. Keystone III participants included members of Generation I (entered practice before 1970), Generation II (entered 1970-1990), and Generation III (entered after 1990). They represented a wide range of family physicians, from medical students to founders of the discipline, and from small-town solo practice to academic medicine. During the conference, the three generations worked together and separately thinking about the past, present, and future of family medicine, our roles in it, and how the understanding of a family physician and our discipline had and would continue to evolve. After the conference, the 10 Generation III members wrote the article published here, reflecting on our experiences as new physicians and physicians in training, and the similarities and differences between our experiences and those of physicians in Generations I and II. Key similarities included commitment to whole-person care, to a wide scope of practice, to community health, and to ongoing engagement with our discipline. Key differences included our understanding of availability, the need for work-life balance, the role of technology in the physician-patient relationship, and the perceptions of the relationship between medicine and a range of outside forces such as insurance and government. This article, presented with only minor edits, thus reflects accurately our perceptions in late 2000. The accompanying editorial reflects our current perspective.

Treatment of lateral epicondylitis.

Lateral epicondylitis is a common overuse syndrome of the extensor tendons of the forearm. It is sometimes called tennis elbow, although it can occur with many activities. The condition affects men and women equally and is more common in persons 40 years or older. Despite the prevalence of lateral epicondylitis and the numerous treatment strategies available, relatively few high-quality clinical trials support many of these treatment options; watchful waiting is a reasonable option. Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroid injections, ultrasonography, and iontophoresis with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs appear to provide short-term benefits. Use of an inelastic, nonarticular, proximal forearm strap (tennis elbow brace) may improve function during daily activities. Progressive resistance exercises may confer modest intermediate-term results. Evidence is mixed on oral nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, mobilization, and acupuncture. Patients with refractory symptoms may benefit from surgical intervention. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy, laser treatment, and electromagnetic field therapy do not appear to be effective.