Background Despite women with criminal justice involvement reporting routine Papanicolaou (Pap) testing, significant disparities in cervical cancer outcomes exist when compared to women without criminal justice involvement. A possible reason for the discrepancy is that this group of women may be misreporting Pap testing. The objective of this study was to validate self-reported cervical cancer screening among women leaving jails. Methods We used three methods to validate self-reported cervical cancer screening for women recently released from jail: 1) Medical record review; 2) Semi-structured interview; 3) Pap test knowledge survey. After validating women’s self-reported Pap tests with a review of their medical records, we scored interviews for Pap test recall, and used Pap test knowledge survey scores to compare scores between women who accurately reported Pap tests vs. those who did not. Results Sixty-one percent (N = 14/23) self-reported cervical cancer screenings were accurate per medical record review. Comparing participants who did and did not accurately self-report a Pap test, we found a significant difference in Pap test recall scores (1.90 vs. 0.00, t = 3.87, p < .01) and Pap test knowledge scores (13.50 vs. 12.13, t = 2.42, p < .05). Conclusion Self-report of cervical cancer screening was more likely to be accurate if a woman’s Pap test knowledge was high. Clinicians might take extra care in describing screening and distinguishing between Pap tests and pelvic exams to support the cervical health of women with lower knowledge.

Objective: To understand how Title X providers currently engage with fertility awareness-based methods (FABMs) for pregnancy prevention in Title X clinics across the United States. Materials and Methods: We developed a survey to assess knowledge of fertility for purposes of pregnancy prevention, attitudes toward FABMs use for pregnancy prevention, and practices when patients request FABMs for pregnancy prevention. Results: In total, 329 participants who met all inclusion criteria completed the survey. Respondents were generally highly knowledgeable on fertility, felt neutrally toward FABMs or thought they were a nonviable option for most women, and were likely to respond to patient requests for FABMs for pregnancy prevention by providing information. Qualitative responses included several barriers to provision of FABMs for pregnancy prevention and few successes to provision. Conclusions: Fertility knowledge and discussion of specific methods increased with the number of methods included in the clinic's written materials or with the number of different FABMs someone at that clinic had been trained on. Significant clinician or administrative barriers may exist to offering FABMs to patients. Incorporating up-to-date information on a range of FABMs-rather than treating them as one method-into contraceptive counseling represents an opportunity to increase the contraceptive offering for clients who want them, leading to increased patient satisfaction and successful family planning outcomes.