Twenty Years of the Ryan Residency Training Program in Abortion and Family Planning

Role of institutional and state policies in management of pregnancies of unknown location: A 2024 online survey of Ryan Programs in the United States

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the perceived impact of state and institutional policies on managing pregnancies of unknown location (PULs) at US Ryan residency programs.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey of US Ryan residency programs (n = 113) from March to April 2024. We compared the perceived influence of institutional and state policies on PUL management among Ryan Programs in restrictive vs nonrestrictive abortion climates. Provision of diagnostic uterine aspiration in the workup of PUL was a secondary outcome. We compared proportion of responses between restrictive and nonrestrictive climates with Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS

We obtained responses from 75 Ryan Programs in 32 states (66.4% response rate). 29 (38.7%) were from states with restrictive abortion policies. Eight programs (10.7%) changed PUL management after the Dobbs decision. Compared to programs in nonrestrictive states, programs in restrictive states were more likely to report that state policy inhibits their ability to care for patients with PUL (34.5% vs 2.17%, p < 0.001), rarely or never offer diagnostic uterine aspiration (34.5% vs 8.7%, p = 0.01), and identify institutional leadership as a barrier to offering diagnostic uterine aspirations (20.7% vs 2.2 %, p = 0.01). The most common institutional barriers to providing diagnostic uterine aspiration were staffing and faculty comfort/willingness, which did not differ by state abortion climate.

CONCLUSIONS

State abortion policy and institutional policy may impact the options available to patients with PULs.

IMPLICATIONS

Programs in all legislative climates should address institutional barriers to providing diagnostic uterine aspiration. Legislative advocacy in restrictive states is needed to ensure access to expedient PUL management.

Barriers to providing procedural abortion care among trained clinicians: An evaluation of an abortion training program

OBJECTIVES

Understand the barriers and facilitators that clinicians face in delivering procedural abortion care following participation in an abortion training program and how these barriers may differ based on professional characteristics (e.g. specialty, career stage) and institutional factors (e.g., clinic policies).

STUDY DESIGN

This analysis is part of a larger evaluation of a clinical training program focused on equipping clinicians with procedural abortion skills. Data collection occurred 07/2020-01/2024 and included semi-structured interviews and post-program surveys collected annually following program completion. Program participants who completed at least two surveys are included.

RESULTS

Forty-four ob-gyn and family medicine physicians met the inclusion criteria for this study. About one-third of program participants provided procedural abortion care 6 months following training and at their last survey (18-, 30- or 42 months post-training), and one-third did not provide at either time point. Barriers and facilitators for those providing abortion care often changed as program participants became more established in their practices (particularly post-residency). While local and state policies influenced the ability to provide care, other institutional and professional factors, including career stage, were often reported with some differences by specialty and career stage.

CONCLUSIONS

Structural and institutional barriers proved significant to those seeking to provide care post-training. Institutions looking to support abortion care should also ensure that this support is given to family medicine physicians. As program participants often had challenges finding work, training programs should focus on helping program participants build networks of providers to provide comprehensive training and job placement support.

IMPLICATIONS

Institutional, career and personal factors have compounding effects on individuals' ability to utilize their abortion training. While abortion training programs are helpful in training providers, program participants from these programs need additional networking and institutional supports to be able to provide procedural abortion care.

Abortion Education for Medical Students in an Era of Increased Abortion Restrictions

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health in June 2022, many states restricted or banned abortion. Medical educators have focused on how this change impacts abortion training for residents, but schools must also adapt undergraduate medical education. Medical schools provide the foundation for future physicians' knowledge and attitudes on abortion. Comprehensive, high-quality abortion education for all medical students is essential for the future of abortion care. Here, we present how education champions can lead curricular improvements in abortion education in the preclinical, clerkship, and postclerkship phases of undergraduate medical education.

"That is when I understood everything": Ideological trajectories of pro-choice female doctors in Mexico

OBJECTIVES

There is little evidence about how physicians become abortion clinicians or advocates. We describe the ideological trajectories of pro-choice female Mexican doctors and the factors that made them pro-choice.

STUDY DESIGN

In this qualitative study, we conducted semistructured interviews with members of the Mexican Network of Female Pro-choice Physicians. Participants came from eight diverse states. We used a feminist epistemology approach and analyzed data using inductive coding as well as a priori categories (becoming pro-choice, trajectories, and training).

RESULTS

We included 24 female pro-choice physicians. We identified five intersecting factors that influenced becoming pro-choice: feminism, personal experiences, confrontation with the inequalities and violence that women experience, role models, and routine exposure to abortion care. Participants described three ideological trajectories: being pro-choice before studying medicine, not having a specific opinion, and changing from "pro-life" to "pro-choice." Participants described the absence of abortion training in medical schools, stigmatizing training, and the use of alternative training sources.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of training on abortion during medical education, a combination of intersecting personal as well as work-related experience may turn doctors into pro-choice abortion clinicians and/or advocates. The findings of this study may be used to develop comprehensive medical curricula as well as strategies directed at doctors who have never received training on abortion care, such as promoting interactions with nonmedical abortion providers, education on inequalities and violence against women, moving beyond public health to a human rights and gender perspective, and exposure to routine safe abortion care.

IMPLICATIONS

Mexican female doctors become pro-choice clinicians who provide abortion care and/or advocates in spite of their medical education.

Mifepristone Use Among Obstetrician-Gynecologists in Massachusetts: Prevalence and Predictors of Use

OBJECTIVES

We estimated the prevalence of mifepristone use for evidence-based indications among obstetrician-gynecologists in independent practice in Massachusetts and explored the demographic and practice-related factors associated with use.

METHODS

We used data from a cross-sectional survey administered to Massachusetts obstetrician-gynecologists identified from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. We measured the prevalence of mifepristone use for four clinical scenarios: early pregnancy loss, medication abortion, cervical preparation before dilation and evacuation procedures, and cervical preparation before induction of labor. Multivariate regression was used to calculate the odds of mifepristone use for these scenarios based on practice type, years in practice, physician sex, and history of medication abortion training.

RESULTS

A total of 198 obstetrician-gynecologists responded to the survey (response rate = 29.0%); this analysis was limited to 158 respondents who were not in residency or fellowship. Overall, 46.0% used mifepristone for early pregnancy loss and 38.6% for medication abortion. Fewer used mifepristone for cervical preparation before dilation and evacuation (26.0%) or before induction of labor (26.4%). Respondents in academic practice settings, with more years in practice, of female sex, and with sufficient medication abortion training were significantly more likely to use mifepristone for one or more evidence-based clinical indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Sufficient medication abortion training during residency significantly predicts whether obstetrician-gynecologists use mifepristone in practice. The U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade will allow state-level abortion bans and restrictions to be in effect, which will reduce exposure to abortion training during residency. Increasing training in and utilization of mifepristone are critical for equitable access to reproductive health services. Further interventions may need to be developed to increase mifepristone use in nonacademic practice settings.

The double-edged sword of abortion regulations: Decreasing training opportunities while increasing knowledge requirements

PURPOSE

The authors explore how abortion regulations in Ohio, an abortion-restrictive state in the USA, impact obstetrician-gynecologists' (OB/GYNs) training in reproductive healthcare and describe what OB/GYNs believe to be the broader impact of Ohio's regulations on skill-building, skills maintenance, and professional retention of reproductive healthcare providers in the state. Authors discuss how their findings foreshadow abortion training limitations in Ohio and other abortion-restrictive states now that abortion regulations have returned to the states.

METHODS

The authors conducted four semi-structured focus groups and five in-depth interviews between April 2019 and March 2020. Participants included OB/GYNs practicing obstetrics and gynecology in Ohio between 2010 and 2020. Thematic analysis was conducted using Atlas.ti.

RESULTS

Twenty attending physicians and 15 fellows and residents participated in the study. Participants discussed the impact of Ohio's written transfer agreement, gestational-limit, and abortion method and facility bans on training and skill-building opportunities. Participants felt that Ohio's strict abortion regulations 1) limit opportunities to observe and perform abortion procedures during training; 2) require learning the ever-changing legality of abortion provision; 3) limit the number of abortions OB/GYNs can provide, leading to the atrophy of their skills over time; and 4) may prevent prospective medical students and residents from choosing to study in Ohio and may lead to physician attrition from the state.

CONCLUSION

Prior to the reversal of federal protections for abortion in 2022, OB/GYNs in Ohio and other abortion-hostile states experienced barriers to training in abortion care. In returning abortion regulation to the states, access to training is likely to be increasingly restricted. This research demonstrates how abortion-restrictions hamper physicians' skills needed to care for patients, particularly in emergent situations. This puts patients at risk and places physicians in precarious ethical positions. Expanding protections and reducing restrictions on abortion will ensure OB/GYNs and trainees have the skills necessary to care for patients presenting for reproductive healthcare.

The association between abortion restrictions and patient-centered care for early pregnancy loss at US obstetrics-gynecology residency programs

BACKGROUND

Early pregnancy loss is a common medical problem, and the recommended treatments overlap with those used for induced abortions. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends the incorporation of clinical and patient factors when applying conservative published imaging guidelines to determine the timing of intervention for early pregnancy loss. However, in places where abortion is heavily regulated, clinicians who manage early pregnancy loss may cautiously rely on the strictest criteria to differentiate between early pregnancy loss and a potentially viable pregnancy. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also notes that specific treatment modalities that are frequently used to induce abortion, including the use of mifepristone in medical therapy and surgical aspiration in an office setting, are cost-effective and beneficial for patients with early pregnancy loss.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine how US-based obstetrics and gynecology residency training institutions adhere to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations for early pregnancy loss management, including the timing and types of interventions, and to evaluate the relationship with institutional and state abortion restrictions.

STUDY DESIGN

From November 2021 to January 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional study of all 296 US-based obstetrics and gynecology residency programs by emailing them and requesting that a faculty member complete a survey about early pregnancy loss practices at their institution. We asked about location of diagnosis, use of imaging guidelines before offering intervention, treatment options available at their institution, and program and personal characteristics. We used chi-square tests and logistic regressions to compare the availability of early pregnancy loss care based on institutional indication-based abortion restrictions and state legislative hostility to abortion care.

RESULTS

Of the 149 programs that responded (50.3% response rate), 74 (49.7%) reported that they did not offer any intervention for suspected early pregnancy loss unless rigid imaging criteria were met, whereas the remaining 75 (50.3%) programs reported that they incorporated imaging guidelines with other factors. In an unadjusted analysis, programs were less likely to incorporate other factors with imaging criteria if they were in a state with legislative policies that were hostile toward abortion (33% vs 79%; P<.001) or if the institution restricted abortion by indication (27% vs 88%; P<.001). Mifepristone was used less often in programs located in hostile states (32% vs 75%; P<.001) or in institutions with abortion restrictions (25% vs 86%; P<.001). Similarly, office-based suction aspiration use was lower in hostile states (48% vs 68%; P=.014) and in institutions with restrictions (40% vs 81%; P<.001). After controlling for program characteristics, including state policies and affiliation with family planning training programs or religious entities, institutional abortion restrictions were the only significant predictor of rigid reliance on imaging guidelines (odds ratio, 12.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-47.9).

CONCLUSION

In training institutions that restrict access to induced abortion based on indication for care, residency programs are less likely to holistically incorporate clinical evidence and patient priorities in determining when to intervene in early pregnancy loss as recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Programs in restrictive institutional and state environments are also less likely to offer the full range of early pregnancy loss treatment options. With state abortion bans proliferating nationwide, evidence-based education and patient-centered care for early pregnancy loss may also be hindered.

Predictors of intention to provide abortions after OB/GYN residency training

INTRODUCTION

Abortion is a common gynecological procedure and plays a central role in women's health and autonomy. To maintain accessibility to abortion, it is important that sufficient obstetrics and gynecology (Ob/Gyn) residents intend to provide abortion care after residency. This study identifies factors that influence a resident's intention to provide abortions (IPA) post-training.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multiple-choice survey, addressing demographics, religious background, residency program metrics, training experience and intent to provide abortions (IPA), was answered by 409 Ob/Gyn residents. Chi-square test was performed on descriptive statistics and continuous variables were tested with ANOVA with p<0.05 considered significant.

RESULTS

Residents with IPA were predominantly female (p = 0.001), training in the Northeast and West (p<0.001), identifying either as non-religious, agnostic/atheist or Jewish (p<0.01), not actively practicing their religion (p<0.001) and leaning democrats (p<0.002). Those with IPA were more likely to train at hospitals without religious affiliation (p<0.008), to train at a Ryan Program (p<0.001), to place strong emphasis on choosing a program with family planning training (p<0.001), to join programs where a significant portion of the faculty performs abortions (p<0.001) and to have completed a higher number of first trimester medical and surgical abortion procedures during the last six months of training (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that factors influencing a physician's intention to provide abortions are multifactorial, involving personal and program factors. A model predicting IPA is derived. To maximize IPA, residency programs can increase abortion volume, facilitate additional training and build a supportive faculty.

New Gaps and Urgent Needs in Graduate Medical Education and Training in Abortion

Abortion is essential health care, and abortion training and education are essential at all levels of medical education. Among the most common procedures performed in obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN), abortion is a core competency for OB/GYN residency programs. For nearly 50 years, the procedure was federally protected by the U.S. Supreme Court's January 22, 1973, Roe v Wade decision. On June 24, 2022, amidst increasing state restrictions limiting abortion access, the Court's decision on Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization effectively reversed Roe . As a result, immediate bans on abortion went into effect across the country, removing access to abortion for millions of people and newly limiting training and education in this core competency for many medical residents. As of June 2022, nearly half of U.S. OB/GYN residency programs and more than 40% of residents are located in states that have banned or are likely to ban abortion. In states where abortion is restricted or illegal, states must adapt quickly to ensure their residents meet training requirements. This adaptation may include developing and leveraging relationships with programs in states where access is protected, depending on simulation, and placing greater emphasis on education and training in pregnancy loss management and postabortion care. None of these is a comprehensive solution and even all together, they are insufficient to train residents and medical students. Ultimately, many future physicians will not receive the training they need to provide full reproductive health care to their pregnant patients. Legal and other systems of support are needed to ensure that current and future physicians can provide compassionate, evidence-based reproductive health care, including essential abortion care.

The ongoing crisis of abortion care education and training in the United States

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The Dobbs vs Jackson case (Dobbs) decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in 2022 rescinded the constitutional right to abortion care, resulting in immediate state bans and severe restrictions on abortion care in almost half of the states at the time of submission. This article reviews the current state of abortion education and training as well as available curricula and programmes to support continued training.

RECENT FINDINGS

Prior to Dobbs, a national residency-level training programme, the Ryan Residency Training Program, has helped expand abortion care training in residency programs nationally, yet there remained many barriers to incorporating this training into practice, including practice and hospital restrictions. New state restrictions now additionally constrain almost half of all the Ob-Gyn residency programmes. Medical students benefit from education on options counselling and values exploration.

SUMMARY

Abortion care education and training is in crisis. Almost half of the Ob-Gyn residents are training in states that have banned or severely restricted abortion care. This threatens to create a workforce without critical early pregnancy management knowledge and skills. Residents are more likely to provide abortion care when they have scheduled routine training. Medical students can apply options counselling and values exploration knowledge broadly. Online education resources provide some patchwork solutions to continue abortion care education and training in this heavily restrictive landscape.

Physicians and healthcare professionals as advocates for abortion care and reproductive choice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current review discusses the overarching role of advocacy as a primary component of access to abortion care. Abortion is viewed differently from any other form of health care, resulting in a marginalized, but essential healthcare component: without ongoing effective and strategic advocacy, abortion will not become or remain available. Lack of access to abortion care disproportionately affects historically excluded communities.

RECENT FINDINGS

Advocacy is core to the provision of sexual and reproductive health. The antiabortion community has effectively used policy to achieve long-term goals of severely restricting access to abortion. Crisis pregnancy centers, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the antiabortion legislation of 2022 have exacerbated existing health inequities. Community engagement and advocacy skills assist providers to support access and combat inequities. Provider and trainee education, interprofessional collaboration, and leadership are critical in the effort to support comprehensive reproductive health care.

SUMMARY

Through this literature review and our lived experiences as abortion providers, we assert the importance of healthcare professionals as advocates for abortion rights and services. The need for advocacy crosses specialties and communities; together we are stronger advocates as we continue to support and fight for access to safe legal and equitable abortion care.

Effect of a family planning program on documented emotional support and reproductive goals counseling after previable pregnancy loss

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of the Ryan Program for family planning training on patient counseling surrounding previable pregnancy loss.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with first- and second-trimester miscarriages, therapeutic abortions, ectopic and molar pregnancies, from years before and after establishing a Ryan Program. We compared documentation of coping and future reproductive goals by patient factors, using chi square testing and logistic regression.

RESULTS

We included 285 pregnancies: 138 pre-Ryan, 147 post-Ryan. Documentation of coping and future goals was greater post-Ryan than pre-Ryan (57.8% vs. 26.8% for coping, 72.8% vs. 50.7% for goals; both p < 0.001). Coping was less likely to be documented for adolescents (aOR 0.02), patients of Asian race (aOR 0.08), those diagnosed in the emergency department (aOR 0.22), and those with ectopic or molar pregnancy (aOR 0.14) (all p < 0.005). Coping documentation increased with second-trimester loss (aOR 6.19) and outpatient follow-up (aOR 3.41) (all p < 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Establishment of a Ryan Program was associated with greater attention to patient coping and goals after previable pregnancy loss. Patients experiencing medically-dangerous pregnancy losses receive less attention to their coping.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Comprehensive family planning training and outpatient access may improve patient-centeredness of care for previable pregnancy loss.