Objective: To describe the implementation and results of a proactive patient outreach project to offer selfadministered, depot medroxyprogesterone (DMPA) subcutaneous (SC) to interested patients at a California safety-net clinic following expanded state Medicaid coverage. Study design: We contacted non-pregnant patients at an urban, safety-net hospital-based primary care clinic who had been prescribed DMPA intramuscular (IM) in the past year to gauge interest in selfadministered DMPA-SC. Interested patients received a prescription for DMPA-SC and a telehealth appointment with a clinic provider to learn self-injection. We recorded patient interest in DMPA-SC, completed appointments, and completed first injections. We conducted initial outreach in May, 2020 and recorded appointment attendance and completed injections through August, 2020. Results: Of 90 eligible patients (age 17-54), we successfully contacted and discussed DMPA-SC with 70 (78%). Twenty-six (37%) patients expressed interest in DMPA-SC and scheduled telehealth appointments to learn to self-administer the medication. Fifteen (58%) of those interested (21% of the total) successfully self-injected DMPA-SC. Of the 44 (63%) patients not interested in DMPA-SC, the three most common reasons were fear of self-injection (n = 23 [52%]), wanting to stop DMPA (n = 11 [25%]), and satisfaction with DMPA-IM (n = 6 [14%]). Conclusion: There is interest in and successful initiation of self-administered DMPA-SC among patients at an urban safety net hospital-based primary care clinic who have used DMPA-IM in the last year. Implications: Our data provide evidence for the interest and successful first injection rate after offering self-administered DMPA-SC to patients on DMPA-IM. Expanding coverage of self-administered DMPA-SC could increase patient-centeredness and accessibility of contraception as well as reduce patient anxiety around COVID-19 transmission without losing contraceptive access.
Objective : To explore US provider perspectives about self-sourced medication abortion and how their attitudes and clinic practices changed in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Study Design : We conducted a multi-method study of survey and interview data. We performed 40 baseline interviews and surveys in spring 2019 and 36 follow-up surveys and ten interviews one year later. We compared pre- and post- Likert scale responses of provider views on the importance of different aspects of standard medication abortion assessment and evaluation (e.g., related to ultrasounds and blood-typing). We performed content analysis of the follow-up interviews using deductive-inductive analysis. Results : Survey results revealed that clinics substantially changed their medication abortion protocols in response to COVID-19, with more than half increasing their gestational age limits and introducing telemedicine for follow-up of a medication abortion. Interview analysis suggested that physicians were more supportive of self-sourced medication abortion in response to changing clinic protocols that decreased in-clinic assessment and evaluation for medication abortion and due to altered risk assessments in the context of COVID-19. Having evidence already in place that supported these changes made the implementation of new protocols more efficient, while working in a state with restrictive abortion policies thwarted the flexibility of clinics to adapt to changes in standards of care. Conclusion : This exploratory study reveals that the COVID-19 pandemic has altered clinical assessment of risk and has shifted practice towards a less medicalized model. Further work to facilitate person-centered abortion information and care can build on initial modifications in response to the pandemic.
Rationale & Objective: Conservative management (medical management without dialysis) may be an appropriate treatment option for some older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease or kidney failure. Patients' and family members' perspectives about conservative management in the United States have been relatively unexplored.
Background: Psychosocial data about living kidney donors have been collected for almost 5 decades now. To date, however, no study has provided any psychosocial follow-up of donors who developed a serious health problem such as end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Methods: Donors who developed ESRD were invited to participate in a qualitative interview if they met one or both of the inclusion criteria: (1) developed ESRD within 10 years of donating and/or (2) lacked health insurance at the time of donation. We contacted 38 individuals who met these criteria, and 22 participated (58%). Two were subsequently excluded from analysis. Results: Twenty qualitative interviews were analyzed. Five findings are described: (1) donors describe the decision-making process as spontaneous and fast; (2) donors describe lack of appreciation for the need for post-donation self-care; (3) donors do not regret donating despite the adverse outcome; (4) donors advise future donors to have in place emotional and physical support post donation; and (5) donors appreciate the opportunity to tell their story from being a living donor to living with ESRD, which virtually all perceive as 2 separate unrelated events. Conclusions: Most donors are positive about their donation decision and experience and would donate again, despite developing ESRD themselves. They propose some important changes to the decision-making and informed-consent processes. Our data are reassuring regarding lack of donor regret, but highlight the need for living donor transplant programs to ensure that living donors understand their long-term risks and receive appropriate life-long follow-up care to minimize these risks.
BackgroundWhile several articles on MD-PhD trainees in the basic sciences have been published in the past several years, very little research exists on physician-investigators in the social sciences and humanities. However, the numbers of MD-PhDs training in these fields and the number of programs offering training in these fields are increasing, particularly within the US. In addition, accountability for the public funding for MD-PhD programs requires knowledge about this growing population of trainees and their career trajectories.The aim of this paper is to describe the first cohorts of MD-PhDs in the social sciences and humanities, to characterize their training and career paths, and to better understand their experiences of training and subsequent research and practice.MethodsThis paper utilizes a multi-pronged recruitment method and novel survey instrument to examine an understudied population of MD-PhD trainees in the social sciences and humanities, many of whom completed both degrees without formal programmatic support. The survey instrument was designed to collect demographic, training and career trajectory data, as well as experiences of and perspectives on training and career. It describes their routes to professional development, characterizes obstacles to and predictors of success, and explores career trends.ResultsThe average length of time to complete both degrees was 9 years. The vast majority (90%) completed a clinical residency, almost all (98%) were engaged in research, the vast majority (88%) were employed in academic institutions, and several others (9%) held leadership positions in national and international health organizations. Very few (4%) went into private practice. The survey responses supply recommendations for supporting current trainees as well as areas for future research.ConclusionsIn general, MD-PhDs in the social sciences and humanities have careers that fit the goals of agencies providing public funding for training physician-investigators: they are involved in mutually-informative medical research, clinical practice, and teaching – working to improve our responses to the social, cultural, and political determinants of health and health care. These findings provide strong evidence for continued and improved funding and programmatic support for MD-PhD trainees in the social sciences and humanities.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-017-0896-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.