Access to single-visit IUD insertion at obstetrician-gynecology practices in Ohio: An audit study

Access to general obstetrics and gynecology care among Medicaid beneficiaries and the privately insured: a nationwide mystery caller study in the USA

BACKGROUND

The mean wait time for new patient appointments has been growing across specialties, including obstetrics and gynecology, in recent years. This study aimed to assess the impact of insurance type (Medicaid versus commercial insurance) on new patient appointment wait times in general obstetrics and gynecology practices.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study used covert mystery calls to general obstetrician gynecologists. Physicians were selected from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists directory and stratified by districts to ensure nationwide representation. Wait times for new patient appointments were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Regardless of insurance type, the mean wait time for all obstetrician gynecologists was 29.9 business days. Medicaid patients experienced a marginally longer wait time of 4.8% (Ratio: 1.048). While no statistically significant difference in wait times based on insurance type was observed (P=0.39), the data revealed other impactful factors. Younger physicians and those in university-based practices had longer wait times. The gender of the physician also influenced wait times, with female physicians having a mean wait time of 34.7 days compared to 22.7 days for male physicians (P=0.03). Additionally, geographical variations were noted, with physicians in American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists District I (Atlantic Provinces, CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) having the longest mean wait times and those in District III (DE, NJ, PA) the shortest.

CONCLUSIONS

While the type of insurance did not significantly influence the wait times for general obstetrics and gynecology appointments, physician demographic and geographic factors did.

Single-visit insertion of long-acting reversible contraception in a single health system

OBJECTIVE

To identify patient and practice characteristics associated with single-visit placement of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) across the University of North Carolina Health system.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective observational study using existing electronic health records. We abstracted data from charts of individuals ages 15-50 years who received a LARC device between March 15, 2019, and March 14, 2021. Our primary outcome was whether a patient received LARC at one, or after multiple, outpatient visits. We used descriptive statistics to examine patient, clinician, and practice characteristics. We used bivariate analysis and generalized estimating equation to examine relationships between characteristics and single-visit LARC receipt.

RESULTS

Most of the 4599 individuals received care at obstetrics and gynecology clinics (3411/4599; 74%), and received their LARC device in a single visit (3163/4599; 69%). More intrauterine devices (3151) were placed than implants (1448). The adjusted odds of receiving a LARC in a single visit was highest for those who self-paid (aOR (adjusted odds ratio) 1.83, 1.19-2.82) and those who received an implant (aOR 1.25, 1.07-1.46). Patients seen by advanced practice practitioners (aOR 0.67, 0.56-0.80) or by an internal medicine specialty clinician (aOR 0.13, 0.00-0.35) had lower odds of receiving a single-visit LARC compared to those seen by a specialist obstetrician-gynecologist physician.

CONCLUSION

Most single-visit LARC placements were performed by clinicians in obstetrician-gynecologist specialty practices.

IMPLICATIONS

Among individuals seeking long-acting reversible contraceptives from clinics in a single health system in North Carolina, most received a device at a single visit and most single-visit insertions were done by an obstetrician-gynecologist.

Factors associated with never-use of long-acting reversible contraception among adult reproductive-aged women in Ohio

BACKGROUND

The number of women using long-acting reversible contraception (LARC)-intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants-is increasing and 14% of contraceptive users in the United States adopt LARC. We examined correlates of LARC never-use in a population-based survey of reproductive-aged women in Ohio.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the 2018-19 Ohio Survey of Women. We examined the prevalence of LARC never-use and reasons for never-use among ever users of contraception (N = 2388). Using Poisson regression to generate prevalence ratios (PRs), we examined associations between selected correlates (demographic factors, healthcare access/quality measures, and religious/political views) and LARC never-use.

RESULTS

Most Ohio women (74%) had never used LARC. Commonly reported reasons for not using an IUD or an implant were preferring a different method (46% and 45%, respectively), not wanting an object inside their body (45% and 43%), side effect concerns (39% and 33%), insertion/removal concerns (31% and 25%), and unfamiliarity (13% and 20%). Conservative political views (PR: 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-1.22), pro-life affiliation (PR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.02-1.20), placing high importance on religion in daily life (PR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.06-1.26), and being non-Hispanic white as compared to non-Hispanic Black (PR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.02-1.41) were significantly associated with LARC never-use. Findings were generally similar for models analyzing IUD and implant never-use separately.

CONCLUSIONS

Among ever-users of contraception, LARC never-use was associated with having conservative political views, being religious, and having a pro-life affiliation. Except for race/ethnicity, demographic and healthcare measures were not associated with LARC never-use among women in Ohio.

Contraceptive Access at Federally Qualified Health Centers During the South Carolina Choose Well Initiative: A Qualitative Analysis of Staff Perceptions and Experiences

Introduction: Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) provide essential contraceptive services to low-income individuals; yet, access to all method options, notably intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants, may be limited at non-Title X FQHCs. The South Carolina (SC) Choose Well initiative is a statewide contraceptive access initiative that was launched in 2017 and extends into 2022. Choose Well established a collaborative network between training and clinical partners and is aimed at facilitating implementation of contraceptive care best practices through capacity-building and training of clinical and administrative staff in partner organizations. The initiative provided funding for workforce expansion and contraceptive methods. We examined perceptions of staff from Choose Well-participating FQHCs regarding contraceptive access during the first 2 years of the initiative, including factors that facilitated or posed access challenges as well as sustaining factors. This study informs the process evaluation of Choose Well while providing data critical for uncovering and scaling up contraceptive access initiatives.

Materials and Methods: Interviews were conducted with FQHC staff (n = 34) in 2018 and 2019 to assess Choose Well implementation and were recorded, transcribed, and double-coded via at least 80% interrater reliability or consensus coding. Data were analyzed according to clinical and administrative factors influencing contraceptive access.

Results: Increased capacity for contraceptive counseling and provision through training and external funding for IUDs and implants were the most noted clinical factors facilitating access. Streamlining workflow processes was also a facilitator. Buy-in and engagement among staff and leadership emerged as a facilitator at some clinics and as a barrier at others. Policy/structural factors related to costs of devices and insurance coverage were identified as threats to sustainability.

Conclusions: The Choose Well initiative contributed to the perception of an increase in contraceptive access at participating FQHCs in SC. Statewide contraceptive access initiatives have the potential to support FQHCs in meeting their clients' contraceptive needs. Organizational buy-in, sustainability of funding, and training are key to realizing the full potential of these initiatives.