Tierney Wolgemuth1, Colleen Judge-Golden2, Katherine Lane3, Jamie Stern4, Sonya Borrero5. 1. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chicago, IL, United States. Electronic address: tierney.wolgemuth@northwestern.edu. 2. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; Center for Women's Health Research and Innovation (CWHRI), University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA,, United States. Electronic address: cpj6@pitt.edu. 3. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. Electronic address: lanekc@upmc.edu. 4. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. Electronic address: sternjl@upmc.edu. 5. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; Center for Women's Health Research and Innovation (CWHRI), University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA,, United States. Electronic address: borrsp@upmc.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To better understand medication abortion attitudes and interest in future provision among Internal Medicine primary care providers (IM PCPs), and to characterize barriers to provision. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a survey with IM attendings and trainees at a large academic medical center in Western Pennsylvania. We used descriptive statistics to characterize attitudes towards medication abortion provision, including the belief that it is within their scope of practice and interest in future provision, and to explore perceived barriers to provision. We used logistic regression models to assess factors associated with each of these attitudes. RESULTS: Of 397 eligible attendings and trainees, 121 (30%) completed the survey. Among those surveyed, 44% believed medication abortion is within the scope of practice of IM PCPs with trainees and female-identifying providers being significantly more likely to believe medication abortion is within their scope of practice compared to attending physicians and male physicians (60% vs 30%, p < 0.01 and 53% vs 31%, p = 0.01, respectively). Similarly, 43% endorsed interest in future provision, with trainees (67% vs 23%, p < 0.001) and female providers (54% vs 27%, p = 0.002) being more likely to express interest. The most cited barriers to provision included limited training in residency (70%) and low familiarity with abortion medications (57%). CONCLUSIONS: Many IM providers- particularly trainees- believe medication abortion is within their scope of practice and would like to provide this care. Interventions are needed to provide education and assistance complying with state and federal regulations to enable safe and efficient medication abortion provision by IM providers. IMPLICATIONS: IM departments and residency programs should seek to ensure training is offered to clinicians interested in providing medication abortion as a part of their primary care practice.
OBJECTIVE: To better understand medication abortion attitudes and interest in future provision among Internal Medicine primary care providers (IM PCPs), and to characterize barriers to provision. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a survey with IM attendings and trainees at a large academic medical center in Western Pennsylvania. We used descriptive statistics to characterize attitudes towards medication abortion provision, including the belief that it is within their scope of practice and interest in future provision, and to explore perceived barriers to provision. We used logistic regression models to assess factors associated with each of these attitudes. RESULTS: Of 397 eligible attendings and trainees, 121 (30%) completed the survey. Among those surveyed, 44% believed medication abortion is within the scope of practice of IM PCPs with trainees and female-identifying providers being significantly more likely to believe medication abortion is within their scope of practice compared to attending physicians and male physicians (60% vs 30%, p < 0.01 and 53% vs 31%, p = 0.01, respectively). Similarly, 43% endorsed interest in future provision, with trainees (67% vs 23%, p < 0.001) and female providers (54% vs 27%, p = 0.002) being more likely to express interest. The most cited barriers to provision included limited training in residency (70%) and low familiarity with abortion medications (57%). CONCLUSIONS: Many IM providers- particularly trainees- believe medication abortion is within their scope of practice and would like to provide this care. Interventions are needed to provide education and assistance complying with state and federal regulations to enable safe and efficient medication abortion provision by IM providers. IMPLICATIONS: IM departments and residency programs should seek to ensure training is offered to clinicians interested in providing medication abortion as a part of their primary care practice.
Authors: Elizabeth G Raymond; Kelly Blanchard; Paul D Blumenthal; Kelly Cleland; Angel M Foster; Marji Gold; Daniel Grossman; Mary K Pendergast; Carolyn L Westhoff; Beverly Winikoff Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-02-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Eleanor Bimla Schwarz; Anne Luetkemeyer; Diana Greene Foster; Tracy A Weitz; Deborah Lindes; Felicia H Stewart Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2005 Jan-Feb
Authors: Rachel S Casas; Sarah K Horvath; Eleanor Bimla Schwarz; Alexandra E Bachorik; Cynthia C Chuang Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-10-11 Impact factor: 6.473