Contraception and abortion in times of crisis: results from an online survey of Venezuelan women

IntroductionIn the last decade, Venezuela has experienced a complex humanitarian crisis that has limited access to healthcare. We set out to describe Venezuelan women's experiences accessing sexual and reproductive health services, including abortion, which is heavily restricted by law.MethodsWe fielded an online survey in July of 2020 among Venezuelan women recruited through social media advertisements. We conducted descriptive statistical analyses using Excel and STATA SE Version 16.0.ResultsWe received 851 completed survey responses. Almost all respondents experienced significant hardship in the last year, including inflation (99%), worries about personal safety (86%), power outages (76%), and lack of access to clean water (74%) and medications (74%). Two thirds of respondents used contraception in the last two years, and almost half (44%) of respondents had difficulty accessing contraception during that same time period. About one fifth of respondents reported having had an abortion; of these, 63% used abortion pills, and 72% reported difficulties in the process. Half of those who had an abortion did it on their own, while the other half sought help – either from family members or friends (34%), from providers in the private health sector (14%), or from the Internet (12%).ConclusionsVenezuelan women who responded to our survey describe a harsh context with limited access to sexual and reproductive health services. However, they report relatively high rates of contraceptive use, and abortion seems to be common despite the restrictive legal setting

Abortion policy implementation in Ireland: successes and challenges in the establishment of hospital-based services

Objective: To describe successes and highlight remaining challenges in the establishment of hospital-based abortion services after legal change in the Republic of Ireland. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study on the implementation of abortion policy in Ireland. In this manuscript, we present the results from a qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews conducted with hospital-based providers, service users, and key informants. We used Dedoose software to conduct a thematic analysis of the data. Results: We report findings from interviews with 28 obstetrician gynecologists, midwives, psychiatrists, anesthesiologists, and nurses; a subset of 7 service users who sought care in hospitals; and 27 key informants. In this analysis, we describe how key themes that pertain to information, capacity and power, facilitated and hindered the implementation of hospital-based abortion services. We found that individual champions are key to establishing the service, but their motivation is not always sufficient to integrate abortion into existing clinical services, and conscientious objection is a persistent barrier to expanding abortion services. The main challenges highlighted here are lack of abortion provision at some hospitals and limited access to surgical abortion at most hospitals due to provider-level, logistical, and infrastructure barriers. Conclusions: This study presents new information on how abortion policy is implemented on the ground in hospital settings. Its findings can inform public health officials and providers in Ireland and other countries wishing to establish abortion services

There\u27s an App for It: A Systematic Review of Mobile Apps Providing Information About Abortion Using a Revised MARS Scale

Mobile applications (apps) are increasingly being used to access health-related information, but it may be challenging for consumers to identify accurate and reliable platforms. We conducted a systematic review of applications that provide information about abortion. We searched the iTunes and Google Play stores and queried professional networks to identify relevant apps. To evaluate the apps, we used the validated Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and added relevant abortion-specific elements. Two reviewers independently rated each app, and we report mean scores on a 5-point scale across the domains of engagement, functionality, esthetics, and information. We also rated app characteristics (including target population and reach), and number of desirable abortion-specific features. We defined recommended apps as those that achieved a score of 4.0 or above for the question: would you recommend this app to people who may benefit from it? Our search initially yielded 282 apps and we identified two additional apps through professional mailing lists. Most were irrelevant or not abortion-specific. We excluded 37 apps that sought to discourage users from seeking abortion. Only 10 apps met inclusion criteria for this review. The Euki app had the highest overall score (4.0). Half of the apps achieved a score of 3.0 or greater. Most of the apps had few desirable design features. Some apps provided significant information but had poor functionality. Only four apps met criteria for being recommended: Euki, Safe Abortion by Hesperian, Ipas Mexico, and Marie Stopes Mexico. In conclusion, we found few apps that provide unbiased information about abortion, and their quality varied greatly. App developers and abortion experts should consider designing additional apps that are clinically accurate, unbiased and well-functioning. We registered this review in the PROSPERO database (Registration # CRD42020195802)

Factors predicting improper use of a woman-controlled long-acting reversible contraceptive: Results from the acceptability study of a novel contraceptive vaginal ring

Objectives: Improper contraceptive use accounts for a large proportion of unintended pregnancies. We sought predictors of improper use of an investigational 1-year, reusable contraceptive vaginal ring that is woman controlled

Factors associated with non-adherence to instructions for using the Nestorone®/ethinyl estradiol contraceptive vaginal ring

Objectives: We sought to identify factors associated with non-adherence to instructions for using a novel contraceptive providing 1-year of protection. Study design: Data from a multi-country Phase 3 trial of the Nestorone® (segesterone acetate)/ethinyl estradiol (NES/EE) CVR were analyzed. Participants were instructed to use the CVR over 13 cycles and follow a 21/7 regimen. Their reports of CVR removals\u3e2 h outside scheduled removal periods served as a proxy for non-adherence. We used multivariate logistic regression to determine factors associated with such use. Results: Of 905 participants, 120 (13%) reported CVR removals\u3e2 h. Removals for washing (OR 3.96, 95%CI 2.50–6.27) or sexual intercourse (OR 3.19, 95%CI 2.03–4.99), and finding CVR insertion difficult (OR 2.80, 95%CI 1.36–5.80) were factors associated with removals\u3e2 h. Lower educational attainment also predicted ring removal \u3e 2 h (OR 3.23, 95%CI 1.55–6.75). Women residing in Europe or Australia were less likely to remove the ring for \u3e 2 h compared with women in the US (OR 0.44, 95%CI 0.24–0.83 and OR 0.13, 95%CI 0.02–0.98, respectively). Participants who reported removals \u3e 2 h were more likely to discontinue CVR use (OR 1.93, 95%CI 1.24–2.95), report dissatisfaction (OR 2.20, 95%CI 1.32–3.69), and become pregnant during the study (OR 4.07, 95%CI 1.58–10.50). Conclusions: Removing the CVR for washing and before intercourse are factors associated with non-adherence to ring use. These are important topics for counseling women who are considering or using vaginal rings, including the NES/EE CVR. Implications: Findings from this study may be useful in guiding counseling for current and prospective vaginal ring users. Anticipatory guidance should focus on how the ring feels in the vagina and during sex. Asking about ring removals may help identify women who are at increased risk for having an unplanned pregnancy

LGBTQI content on obstetrics and gynecology residency websites

BACKGROUND: In the United States (US), many obstetrics & gynecology (OB-GYN) trainees feel unprepared to care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI) individuals, but interest in this topic is rising. Residency program websites are one way that directors can advertise whether this training is offered within their program. We aimed to describe the extent to which LGBTQI content is currently featured on OB-GYN residency websites across the country. METHODS: We identified all OB-GYN residency programs in the United States using a publicly available database. We systematically searched for select LGBTQI keywords on program websites. We collected data on mentions of LGBTQI didactics and rotations. We also searched whether LGTBQI keywords were included in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements. We used multivariable logistic regression to compare the characteristics of programs that do and do not include this content. We used STATA SE Version 16.0 for all analyses and set the level of significance at 5%. RESULTS: We included 287/295 US OB-GYN residency programs in our analysis (97.3%) and excluded 8 that did not have websites. We identified any LGBTQI content on 50 program websites (17.4%), and specific mention of didactics or rotations on 8 websites (2.8%). On multivariable analysis, programs in the West were more likely to include any LGBTQI content compared to programs in the South (OR 2.81, 95%CI 1.04-7.63), as were programs with 1 or 2 fellowships (OR 3.41, 95%CI 1.43-8.14) or 3 or more fellowships (OR 4.85, 95%CI 2.03-11.57) compared to those without fellowships. Programs in departments led by female chairs were also more likely to include LBTQI content (OR 3.18, 95%CI 1.55-6.51). CONCLUSIONS: Academic programs, West Coast programs, and those with departments led by female chairs are more likely to mention LGBTQI keywords on their websites. Given the increasing interest in LGBTQI education for OB-GYN trainees, program directors should consider providing training opportunities and including this content on their websites

PRISMA Checklist.

Mobile applications (apps) are increasingly being used to access health-related information, but it may be challenging for consumers to identify accurate and reliable platforms. We conducted a systematic review of applications that provide information about abortion. We searched the iTunes and Google Play stores and queried professional networks to identify relevant apps. To evaluate the apps, we used the validated Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and added relevant abortion-specific elements. Two reviewers independently rated each app, and we report mean scores on a 5-point scale across the domains of engagement, functionality, esthetics, and information. We also rated app characteristics (including target population and reach), and number of desirable abortion-specific features. We defined recommended apps as those that achieved a score of 4.0 or above for the question: “would you recommend this app to people who may benefit from it?” Our search initially yielded 282 apps and we identified two additional apps through professional mailing lists. Most were irrelevant or not abortion-specific. We excluded 37 apps that sought to discourage users from seeking abortion. Only 10 apps met inclusion criteria for this review. The Euki app had the highest overall score (4.0). Half of the apps achieved a score of 3.0 or greater. Most of the apps had few desirable design features. Some apps provided significant information but had poor functionality. Only four apps met criteria for being recommended: Euki, Safe Abortion by Hesperian, Ipas Mexico, and Marie Stopes Mexico. In conclusion, we found few apps that provide unbiased information about abortion, and their quality varied greatly. App developers and abortion experts should consider designing additional apps that are clinically accurate, unbiased and well-functioning. We registered this review in the PROSPERO database (Registration # CRD42020195802).</div

App Subjective Quality scores.

Mobile applications (apps) are increasingly being used to access health-related information, but it may be challenging for consumers to identify accurate and reliable platforms. We conducted a systematic review of applications that provide information about abortion. We searched the iTunes and Google Play stores and queried professional networks to identify relevant apps. To evaluate the apps, we used the validated Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and added relevant abortion-specific elements. Two reviewers independently rated each app, and we report mean scores on a 5-point scale across the domains of engagement, functionality, esthetics, and information. We also rated app characteristics (including target population and reach), and number of desirable abortion-specific features. We defined recommended apps as those that achieved a score of 4.0 or above for the question: “would you recommend this app to people who may benefit from it?” Our search initially yielded 282 apps and we identified two additional apps through professional mailing lists. Most were irrelevant or not abortion-specific. We excluded 37 apps that sought to discourage users from seeking abortion. Only 10 apps met inclusion criteria for this review. The Euki app had the highest overall score (4.0). Half of the apps achieved a score of 3.0 or greater. Most of the apps had few desirable design features. Some apps provided significant information but had poor functionality. Only four apps met criteria for being recommended: Euki, Safe Abortion by Hesperian, Ipas Mexico, and Marie Stopes Mexico. In conclusion, we found few apps that provide unbiased information about abortion, and their quality varied greatly. App developers and abortion experts should consider designing additional apps that are clinically accurate, unbiased and well-functioning. We registered this review in the PROSPERO database (Registration # CRD42020195802).</div

Flowchart of Abortion App Search.

Mobile applications (apps) are increasingly being used to access health-related information, but it may be challenging for consumers to identify accurate and reliable platforms. We conducted a systematic review of applications that provide information about abortion. We searched the iTunes and Google Play stores and queried professional networks to identify relevant apps. To evaluate the apps, we used the validated Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and added relevant abortion-specific elements. Two reviewers independently rated each app, and we report mean scores on a 5-point scale across the domains of engagement, functionality, esthetics, and information. We also rated app characteristics (including target population and reach), and number of desirable abortion-specific features. We defined recommended apps as those that achieved a score of 4.0 or above for the question: “would you recommend this app to people who may benefit from it?” Our search initially yielded 282 apps and we identified two additional apps through professional mailing lists. Most were irrelevant or not abortion-specific. We excluded 37 apps that sought to discourage users from seeking abortion. Only 10 apps met inclusion criteria for this review. The Euki app had the highest overall score (4.0). Half of the apps achieved a score of 3.0 or greater. Most of the apps had few desirable design features. Some apps provided significant information but had poor functionality. Only four apps met criteria for being recommended: Euki, Safe Abortion by Hesperian, Ipas Mexico, and Marie Stopes Mexico. In conclusion, we found few apps that provide unbiased information about abortion, and their quality varied greatly. App developers and abortion experts should consider designing additional apps that are clinically accurate, unbiased and well-functioning. We registered this review in the PROSPERO database (Registration # CRD42020195802).</div

PRISMA Flowchart.

Mobile applications (apps) are increasingly being used to access health-related information, but it may be challenging for consumers to identify accurate and reliable platforms. We conducted a systematic review of applications that provide information about abortion. We searched the iTunes and Google Play stores and queried professional networks to identify relevant apps. To evaluate the apps, we used the validated Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and added relevant abortion-specific elements. Two reviewers independently rated each app, and we report mean scores on a 5-point scale across the domains of engagement, functionality, esthetics, and information. We also rated app characteristics (including target population and reach), and number of desirable abortion-specific features. We defined recommended apps as those that achieved a score of 4.0 or above for the question: “would you recommend this app to people who may benefit from it?” Our search initially yielded 282 apps and we identified two additional apps through professional mailing lists. Most were irrelevant or not abortion-specific. We excluded 37 apps that sought to discourage users from seeking abortion. Only 10 apps met inclusion criteria for this review. The Euki app had the highest overall score (4.0). Half of the apps achieved a score of 3.0 or greater. Most of the apps had few desirable design features. Some apps provided significant information but had poor functionality. Only four apps met criteria for being recommended: Euki, Safe Abortion by Hesperian, Ipas Mexico, and Marie Stopes Mexico. In conclusion, we found few apps that provide unbiased information about abortion, and their quality varied greatly. App developers and abortion experts should consider designing additional apps that are clinically accurate, unbiased and well-functioning. We registered this review in the PROSPERO database (Registration # CRD42020195802).</div