Objective. To explore the sexual and reproductive health (SRH) care and counseling needs of young women with rheumatic diseases in the context of their rheumatology care.Methods. Semistructured qualitative telephone interviews were conducted with female patients with rheumatic diseases ages 18-45 years (n = 30). Women were recruited from outpatient rheumatology clinics in western Pennsylvania. Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. A codebook was inductively developed based on the interview transcripts, and the finalized coding was used to conduct a thematic analysis.Results. Four themes emerged from interviews: 1) women want rheumatologists to initiate conversations about SRH and to revisit the conversation over time; 2) women desire clear and complete information regarding fetal, pregnancy, and infertility risks associated with their diseases and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs); 3) women want to be treated holistically, with SRH addressed in the context of their life circumstances and personal values in addition to their rheumatic diseases; 4) women generally feel that they are intermediaries between their rheumatologists and obstetrician-gynecologists (OB/GYNs), but preferred for providers to communicate directly with one another about their SRH.Conclusion. Patients strongly desired rheumatologists to play an active role in their SRH, by initiating family planning conversations, providing SRH education in the context of their diseases and DMARDs, and directly coordinating SRH care with OB/GYNs. To meet patients' SRH needs, further work is needed to clarify the specific role of rheumatologists in providing SRH care and to identify ways to better facilitate communication between rheumatologists and reproductive health care providers.
ImportanceClinical trials guide evidence-based obstetrics and gynecology (OB-GYN) but often enroll nonrepresentative participants.ObjectiveTo characterize race and ethnicity reporting and representation in US OB-GYN clinical trials and their subsequent publications and to analyze the association of subspecialty and funding with diverse representation.Design and SettingCross-sectional analysis of all OB-GYN studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (2007-2020) and publications from PubMed and Google Scholar (2007-2021). Analyses included logistic regression controlling for year, subspecialty, phase, funding, and site number. Data from 332 417 studies were downloaded. Studies with a noninterventional design, with a registration date before October 1, 2007, without relevance to OB-GYN, with no reported results, and with no US-based study site were excluded.ExposuresOB-GYN subspecialty and funder.Main Outcomes and MeasuresReporting of race and ethnicity data and racial and ethnic representation (the proportion of enrollees of American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Black, Latinx, or White identity and odds of representation above US Census estimates by race and ethnicity).ResultsAmong trials with ClinicalTrials.gov results (1287 trials with 591 196 participants) and publications (1147 trials with 821 111 participants), 662 (50.9%) and 856 (74.6%) reported race and ethnicity data, respectively. Among publications, gynecology studies were significantly less likely to report race and ethnicity than obstetrics (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.38-0.75). Reproductive endocrinology and infertility trials had the lowest odds of reporting race and ethnicity (aOR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.07-0.27; reference category, obstetrics). Obstetrics and family planning demonstrated the most diverse clinical trial cohorts. Compared with obstetric trials, gynecologic oncology had the lowest odds of Black representation (ClinicalTrials.gov: aOR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.02-0.09; publications: aOR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.03-0.11) and Latinx representation (ClinicalTrials.gov: aOR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02-0.14; publications: aOR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.10-0.48), followed by urogynecology and reproductive endocrinology and infertility. Urogynecology (ClinicalTrials.gov: aOR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05-0.39; publications: aOR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09-0.58) had the lowest odds of Asian representation.Conclusions and RelevanceRace and ethnicity reporting and representation in OB-GYN trials are suboptimal. Obstetrics and family planning trials demonstrate improved representation is achievable. Nonetheless, all subspecialties should strive for more equitably representative research.
211CONTEXT: Women may be at risk for unintended pregnancy if they forgo contraception or use ineffective methods because they erroneously believe they are unlikely to conceive. However, the relationship between perceived susceptibility to pregnancy and contraceptive use is not fully understood. Data collected in 2014Data collected in -2016 for the Examining Contraceptive Use and Unmet Needs study were used to examine perceived susceptibility to pregnancy among 969 women veterans aged 20-45 who were at risk for unintended pregnancy and received primary care through the U.S. Veterans Affairs Healthcare System. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify associations between perceived susceptibility to pregnancy (perceived likelihood during one year of unprotected intercourse) and use of any contraceptive at last sex. Multinomial regression models were used to examine method effectiveness among women who used a contraceptive at last sex. METHODS: RESULTS:Forty percent of women perceived their susceptibility to pregnancy to be low. Compared with women with high perceived susceptibility to pregnancy, those with low perceived susceptibility were less likely to have used any contraceptive at last sex (86% vs. 96%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.2). Among contraceptive users, women with low perceived susceptibility were less likely than those with high perceived susceptibility to have used a highly effective method (26% vs. 34%; adjusted relative risk ratio, 0.6) or moderately effective method (34% vs. 39%; 0.6) at last sex. CONCLUSIONS:Identifying and addressing fertility misperceptions among women with low perceived susceptibility to pregnancy could help promote informed decision making about contraception and reduce the risk of unintended pregnancy.
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.