Abortion training in obstetrics and gynecology residency training programs has increased since 2004, yet many programs graduate residents without sufficient training to provide abortions for any indication, as well as dilation and evacuation. Professional training standards and support for family planning training have coincided with improved training, but there are still barriers to understand and overcome.

No abstract

It is safe and feasible to provide LARC methods to incarcerated women. Correctional facilities should consider increasing access to all available contraceptives, including LARC methods, in a noncoercive manner as a strategy to reduce reproductive health disparities among marginalized women at high risk of unplanned pregnancies.

Objectives To evaluate if a values clarification workshop conducted at Catholic hospital training programs influenced obstetrics and gynecology residents' abortion attitudes. Study design Between 2018 and 2019, we provided a values clarification workshop focused on abortion care to 47 obstetrics and gynecology residents at five Catholic programs that do not provide abortion training. Participants received a pre-survey eliciting participant characteristics, and training experiences. On pre- and post-surveys, we asked participants to respond to abortion scenarios using a five-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = strongly agree). We calculated descriptive frequencies, report the proportions agreeing with the statements (Likert ≥ 4) before and after the workshop, and compared median Likert responses using Wilcoxon matched pair test. Results Forty-one participants (87%) completed both surveys. Twelve (29%) reported Catholic religion, six (15%) reported their personal reproductive care views were in line with their institution, and five (12%) selected their program based on its religious affiliation. Three (9%) had experience with first-trimester abortion for nonmedical reasons, and 20 (49%) planned to provide such care after graduation. Both before and after the workshop, all participants could think of a justification why a patient with an undesired pregnancy would choose abortion. After the workshop, more residents were able to think of a justifiable reason for the following abortion-related scenarios: (1) patients declining post-abortal contraception (51% vs. 78%, p < 0.001), (2) patients presenting for subsequent abortion (93% vs 95%, p = 0.01), and (3) patients presenting for second-trimester abortion (93% vs. 100%, p = 0.001). Many participants increased their Likert score when asked about acceptability of patients declining post-abortal contraception (n = 24, 59%), patients seeking a subsequent abortion (n = 15, 37%), and patients obtaining a second trimester abortion contraception (n = 11, 27%). Emotional and professional reactions to these scenarios were unchanged. After the workshop, residents were more likely to consider either financial inability (73% vs. 83%, p < 0.01) or disruption to career or education (71% vs 80%, p < 0.01) as morally acceptable reasons for requesting an abortion. For abortion for a patient who is financially unable to support their child, 12 (29%) increased their Likert score, 1 (2%) had a lower score and the remaining 28 (68%) had no change. For abortion for a patient whose career or education would be disrupted 13 (32%) increased their Likert score, one (2%) had a lower score and the remaining 27 (66%) had no change. Conclusion Our values clarification workshop resulted in more residents at Catholic training programs endorsing accepting attitudes toward abortion patient scenarios. Values clarifi...