PURPOSE: Routine assessment of women's pregnancy intentions and contraceptive use-a so-called contraceptive vital sign-may help primary care physicians identify patients who need preconception or contraceptive counseling and be of particular benefit when teratogenic medications are prescribed. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of a contraceptive vital sign on primary care documentation of contraceptive use and change in primary care physicians' provision of family planning services. Academic internists in the intervention group (n = 26) were provided with information on their female patients' pregnancy intentions and contraceptive use immediately before visits; internists in the control group (n = 27) receivedonly standard intake information. Data were abstracted from the electronic health record for 5,371 visits by 2,304 women aged 18 to 50 years. RESULTS:Documentation of contraception increased from baseline, from 23% to 57% in the intervention group, but remained 28% in the control group, a change of +77.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.7 to 84.1) adjusted percentage points in the former vs +3.1 (95% CI, 1.2 to 5.0) in the latter (P <.001). For visits involving a teratogenic prescription, documentation increased from 14% to 48% in the intervention group and decreased from 29% to 26% in the control group, a change of +61.5 (95% CI, 35.8 to 87.1) adjusted percentage points in the former vs -0.3 (95% CI, -4.3 to 3.6) in the latter (P <.001). Provision of new family planning services increased only minimally with this intervention, however. When women with documented nonuse of contraception were prescribed potential teratogens, only 7% were provided family planning services. CONCLUSIONS: A contraceptive vital sign improves documentation of contraceptive use; however, ongoing efforts are needed to improve provision of preconception and contraceptive services.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Routine assessment of women's pregnancy intentions and contraceptive use-a so-called contraceptive vital sign-may help primary care physicians identify patients who need preconception or contraceptive counseling and be of particular benefit when teratogenic medications are prescribed. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of a contraceptive vital sign on primary care documentation of contraceptive use and change in primary care physicians' provision of family planning services. Academic internists in the intervention group (n = 26) were provided with information on their female patients' pregnancy intentions and contraceptive use immediately before visits; internists in the control group (n = 27) received only standard intake information. Data were abstracted from the electronic health record for 5,371 visits by 2,304 women aged 18 to 50 years. RESULTS: Documentation of contraception increased from baseline, from 23% to 57% in the intervention group, but remained 28% in the control group, a change of +77.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.7 to 84.1) adjusted percentage points in the former vs +3.1 (95% CI, 1.2 to 5.0) in the latter (P <.001). For visits involving a teratogenic prescription, documentation increased from 14% to 48% in the intervention group and decreased from 29% to 26% in the control group, a change of +61.5 (95% CI, 35.8 to 87.1) adjusted percentage points in the former vs -0.3 (95% CI, -4.3 to 3.6) in the latter (P <.001). Provision of new family planning services increased only minimally with this intervention, however. When women with documented nonuse of contraception were prescribed potential teratogens, only 7% were provided family planning services. CONCLUSIONS: A contraceptive vital sign improves documentation of contraceptive use; however, ongoing efforts are needed to improve provision of preconception and contraceptive services.
Authors: Courtney A Schreiber; Bryna J Harwood; Galen E Switzer; Mitchell D Creinin; Matthew F Reeves; Roberta B Ness Journal: Contraception Date: 2006-04-17 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Eleanor Bimla Schwarz; Debbie A Postlethwaite; Yun-Yi Hung; Mary Anne Armstrong Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2007-09-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Susan E Andrade; Jerry H Gurwitz; Robert L Davis; K Arnold Chan; Jonathan A Finkelstein; Kris Fortman; Heather McPhillips; Marsha A Raebel; Douglas Roblin; David H Smith; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Abraham N Morse; Richard Platt Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: James G Dixon; Bryan A Bognar; Thomas C Keyserling; Connie T Du Pre; Sharon X Xie; Glenda C Wickstrom; Maria M Kolar Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Julie A Womack; Matthew Scotch; Sylvia N Leung; Melissa Skanderson; Harini Bathulapalli; Sally G Haskell; Cynthia A Brandt Journal: Perspect Health Inf Manag Date: 2013-07-01
Authors: Lori M Gawron; Sara Simonsen; Morgan M Millar; Jessica Lewis-Caporal; Shardool Patel; Rebecca G Simmons Journal: South Med J Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 0.954