The integration of abortion into obstetrician-gynecologists' practice after comprehensive family planning resident training

Defying the odds: Facilitating integration of abortion care into clinical practice in the United States

OBJECTIVES

We sought to describe the experiences of physicians who successfully incorporated abortion care into their practices in the United States. We explored facilitators of and barriers to abortion provision.

STUDY DESIGN

In this qualitative study, we conducted semistructured interviews with a national sample of obstetrician-gynecologists and family medicine physicians providing abortion care. Interviews addressed facilitators of and barriers to abortion provision, lessons learned and recommendations for future providers. We analyzed data using a content analysis approach.

RESULTS

We interviewed 14 obstetrician-gynecologists and 11 family medicine physicians providing abortion care as part of their practices. We identified four categories of facilitators and barriers: personal, community, training, and workplace factors. Major facilitators included supportive leadership and professional mentorship. Major barriers included antagonistic colleagues and leadership. Lessons learned included proactively assessing leadership support, identifying institutional allies, actively minimizing workplace conflict and being perceived as a team player. Recommended resources to increase abortion provision included clinical support, mentorship, funding, negotiation coaching, and access to clinical policies.

CONCLUSIONS

Institutional leadership support emerged as a critical facilitator for initiating and continuing to offer abortion care. Efforts to expand abortion access should include investments in supportive leadership, both in academic and community practices.

IMPLICATIONS

Maximizing abortion access is essential to counteract the legislative and political restrictions imposed on abortion care. Institutional support is a critical facilitator of abortion provision, and efforts to expand abortion access should include investments in supportive leadership and health care administration.

The association between abortion training and obstetrics and gynecology resident competence and intention to provide abortion care before Dobbs

OBJECTIVE

To assess the role of abortion training in fourth-year obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) residents' abortion care competence and practice intentions before the Dobbs decision.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a planned secondary analysis of survey data of fourth-year U.S. OBGYN residents. Abortion training was defined as 'routine' if automatically included in schedules, ''optional'' if not scheduled but available, and ''not available''. Self-assessed competence was defined as feeling prepared to independently provide care. Participants were asked about their competence and post-residency intentions to provide specific aspects of pregnancy loss and induced abortion care.

RESULTS

Of 1241 fourth-year residents, 885 (71%) completed the questions of interest. For each skill, more residents with routine training reported competence compared to those with less comprehensive training. More residents with routine training reported intentions to include abortion care in practice (422, 79%) compared to residents with optional (171, 66%) or no training (51, 55%), p < 0.001). Residents with routine training were nearly six times more likely to intend to provide medication abortion post-residency compared to residents without training; more residents in all groups reported intentions to provide care for pregnancy loss compared to abortion.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-Dobbs, residents with routine abortion training had greater self-assessed competence in abortion care than those with optional or no training and were more likely to intend to provide this after residency. Given the evolving impacts of the 2022 reversal of Roe v Wade, residency training programs must work to ensure routine access to legally permissible abortion training as routine training is associated with intention to provide fundamental, reproductive healthcare.

IMPLICATIONS

Routine training in abortion care during OBGYN residency is associated with higher competence and intention to provide post-residency - availability of this training Is severely compromised in restricted states post-Dobbs.

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.

The Opinions of Specialists in Obstetrics and Gynecology on the Indications for Pregnancy Termination in Poland-A Preliminary Cross-Sectional Study

The physician's decision concerning pregnancy termination is influenced by a number of factors. The study aimed at obtaining the opinions of obstetricians and gynecologists with regard to the indications for pregnancy termination, the readiness to perform the procedure personally and the assessment of the determinants thereof. The survey study was conducted between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2021 among physicians who performed diagnostic prenatal ultrasonography. A considerable majority of physicians participating in the study did not approve of termination without medical indications (62.5%). A marked majority of them considered the following cases as indications for pregnancy termination: severe fetal defects (90%), lethal defects (91.5%) and a disease threatening maternal life (91.5%). A small group of physicians declared that they were ready to perform a termination without medical indications (12.5%). However, they were ready to perform a pregnancy termination personally in cases of threat to maternal life (77.5%), severe fetal defects (75%), lethal fetal defects (75%) and a pregnancy being a result of rape (75%). No statistical significance was observed with regard to the influence of the respondents' sex, the fact of having children or the workplace on the issue of indications for pregnancy termination. It seems justified to develop case-centered counseling concerning abortion, based on specialists in perinatology, law and ethics, especially in countries with more restrictive abortion law or strongly religious societies.