The Alabama Embryo Decision-The Politics and Reality of Recognizing "Extrauterine Children".

This Viewpoint discusses the Alabama Supreme Court's opinion on in vitro fertilization and how it plays into a larger push for fetal and embryonic personhood.

Crisis Pregnancy Centers: An Inherently Unjust Limitation to Reproductive Rights.

Abortion, though afforded certain legal protections, can be challenging to access in many areas of the United States, a problem exacerbated by the presence of Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs). CPCs present themselves as clinics that provide a full spectrum of free pregnancy consultation services, but in fact are pro-life, anti-abortion organizations.1 From the outside, CPCs appear to be neutral health and welfare establishments, leading women *to believe they will receive unbiased guidance based on their best interests. In reality, CPCs recruit unsuspecting women into their facilities to deter them from accessing abortions, promoting only two options: parenthood or adoption.2 Women are lured into CPCs with the promise of free services which range from medical care to clothing and other items. At its most basic level, these deceptive practices violate the autonomy of women seeking reproductive care, perpetuating unjust limitation of access to quality medical care.

Out of the Freezer and into the Policy Fire: Quandaries in Reproductive Cryopreservation.

The field of assisted reproduction is advancing rapidly and is ripe for regulation and guidance. In 2018, over four thousand frozen eggs and embryos were lost to approximately one thousand patients at Ahuja University Hospital in Cleveland, Ohio, due to an accidental thaw of a cryopreservation tank. The precedent that will be set by the Ahuja class-action case is significant for both past events and future possibilities and is core to the discussion of policy involving the cryopreservation of gametes and embryos.

Treating psychological insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: The phenomenon of psychological insulin resistance (PIR) has been well documented for two decades, but interventions to treat PIR have not been well described. The aim of this study was to describe interventions used to treat psychological insulin resistance by certified diabetes educators (CDE's). METHODS: A secondary data analysis study using empirical data from a trial (N = 234) that included four CDEs providing counseling for psychological insulin resistance. Participants not currently using insulin completed the 10-item Barriers to Insulin Therapy measure. The four CDE interventionists documented their approach to addressing participants' barriers to taking insulin using a standard form. Recommendations were collated and summarized. RESULTS: Strong PIR was shown by 28.4% of participants reporting that they "would not start insulin" and a moderate degree of PIR was shown by 61.2% who said they "would be upset, but would start insulin." The CDE's treated PIR with four primary interventions: 1) teaching and providing explanations, 2) demonstrations and sharing examples of success using insulin therapy, 3) return demonstrations, and 4) addressing feelings and positively managing expectations. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to describe in some detail potentially effective patient management strategies for PIR. A randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of PIR interventions is needed.

Advance care planning: a qualitative study of dialysis patients and families.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: More than 90,000 patients with ESRD die annually in the United States, yet advance care planning (ACP) is underutilized. Understanding patients' and families' diverse needs can strengthen systematic efforts to improve ACP. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In-depth interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of patients and family/friends from dialysis units at two study sites. Applying grounded theory, interviews were audiotaped, professionally transcribed, and analyzed in an iterative process. Emergent themes were identified, discussed, and organized into major themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Thirteen patients and nine family/friends participated in interviews. The mean patient age was 63 years (SD 14) and five patients were women. Participants identified as black (n=1), Hispanic (n=4), Native American (n=4), Pacific Islander (n=1), white (n=11), and mixed (n=1). Three major themes with associated subthemes were identified. The first theme, "Prior experiences with ACP," revealed that these discussions rarely occur, yet most patients desire them. A potential role for the primary care physician was broached. The second theme, "Factors that may affect perspectives on ACP," included a desire for more of a connection with the nephrologist, positive and negative experiences with the dialysis team, disenfranchisement, life experiences, personality traits, patient-family/friend relationships, and power differentials. The third theme, "Recommendations for discussing ACP," included thoughts on who should lead discussions, where and when discussions should take place, what should be discussed and how. CONCLUSIONS: Many participants desired better communication with their nephrologist and/or their dialysis team. A number expressed feelings of disenfranchisement that could negatively impact ACP discussions through diminished trust. Life experiences, personality traits, and relationships with family and friends may affect patient perspectives regarding ACP. This study's findings may inform clinical practice and will be useful in designing prospective intervention studies to improve patient and family experiences at the end of life.

Motivational interviewing delivered by diabetes educators: does it improve blood glucose control among poorly controlled type 2 diabetes patients?

AIM: To determine whether glycemic control is improved when motivational interviewing (MI), a patient-centered behavior change strategy, is used with diabetes self management education (DSME) as compared to DSME alone. METHODS: poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients (n=234) were randomized into 4 groups: MI+DSME or DSME alone, with or without use of a computerized summary of patient self management barriers. We compared HbA1c changes between groups at 6 months and investigated mediators of HbA1c change. RESULTS: study patients attended the majority of the four intervention visits (mean 3.4), but drop-out rate was high at follow-up research visits (35%). Multiple regression showed that groups receiving MI had a mean change in HbA1c that was significantly lower (less improved) than those not receiving MI (t=2.10; p=0.037). Mediators of HbA1c change for the total group were diabetes self-care behaviors and diabetes distress; no between-group differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: DSME improved blood glucose control, underlining its benefit for T2DM management. However, MI+DSME was less effective than DSME alone. Overall, weak support was found for the clinical utility of MI in the management of T2DM delivered by diabetes educators.