Abortion Training in Family Medicine Residency Programs: A National Survey of Program Directors 5 Months After the Dobbs Decision.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Family Medicine Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-19 DOI:10.22454/FamMed.2024.683874
Aleza K Summit, Erica Chong
{"title":"Abortion Training in Family Medicine Residency Programs: A National Survey of Program Directors 5 Months After the Dobbs Decision.","authors":"Aleza K Summit, Erica Chong","doi":"10.22454/FamMed.2024.683874","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Routine abortion training during family medicine (FM) residency leads to higher rates of postresidency provision; increased availability of abortion care in the FM setting could greatly improve access. Especially in the post-Dobbs context, understanding the landscape of abortion training in US family medicine residency programs (FMRPs) is critical.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We invited all directors of US FMRPs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education to complete a larger omnibus online survey that included questions on abortion training. We compiled descriptive statistics and conducted χ2 tests and multivariate regression analyses to detect associations with abortion training.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The response rate was 42% (N=286). Nineteen percent of programs had routine medication abortion (MAB) training and 10% had routine aspiration training. In addition, 58% of programs offered elective MAB training and 52% offered elective aspiration training. In multivariate regression, the presence of abortion training was associated with a program having 31 or more residents, being in a state with protected abortion access, not having a Catholic affiliation, and having a program director who believed abortion training should be routine in FMRPs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While more than half of responding FMRPs reported some abortion training, much of it was elective, and 40% of programs lacked abortion training completely. Although abortion training is severely limited or prohibited in states with abortion bans, more training opportunities in the states where abortion is possible could increase access to abortion within primary care.</p>","PeriodicalId":50456,"journal":{"name":"Family Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"242-249"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11189119/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2024.683874","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Routine abortion training during family medicine (FM) residency leads to higher rates of postresidency provision; increased availability of abortion care in the FM setting could greatly improve access. Especially in the post-Dobbs context, understanding the landscape of abortion training in US family medicine residency programs (FMRPs) is critical.

Methods: We invited all directors of US FMRPs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education to complete a larger omnibus online survey that included questions on abortion training. We compiled descriptive statistics and conducted χ2 tests and multivariate regression analyses to detect associations with abortion training.

Results: The response rate was 42% (N=286). Nineteen percent of programs had routine medication abortion (MAB) training and 10% had routine aspiration training. In addition, 58% of programs offered elective MAB training and 52% offered elective aspiration training. In multivariate regression, the presence of abortion training was associated with a program having 31 or more residents, being in a state with protected abortion access, not having a Catholic affiliation, and having a program director who believed abortion training should be routine in FMRPs.

Conclusions: While more than half of responding FMRPs reported some abortion training, much of it was elective, and 40% of programs lacked abortion training completely. Although abortion training is severely limited or prohibited in states with abortion bans, more training opportunities in the states where abortion is possible could increase access to abortion within primary care.

全科住院医师培训项目中的堕胎培训:多布斯决定 5 个月后对项目主任的全国调查。
背景和目标:在全科医学(FM)住院医师培训期间进行常规人工流产培训可提高住院医师培训后的人工流产率;增加全科医学住院医师培训中人工流产护理的可用性可极大地提高人工流产的可及性。特别是在后多布斯时代背景下,了解美国家庭医学住院医师培训项目(FMRPs)的人工流产培训情况至关重要:方法:我们邀请所有经美国毕业后医学教育认证委员会认证的美国全科住院医师培训项目的主任完成一项规模较大的综合在线调查,其中包括有关人工流产培训的问题。我们编制了描述性统计资料,并进行了χ2检验和多元回归分析,以检测与人工流产培训之间的关联:结果:回复率为 42%(N=286)。19%的项目有常规药物流产(MAB)培训,10%的项目有常规吸宫术培训。此外,58%的项目提供选择性药物流产培训,52%的项目提供选择性吸宫术培训。在多变量回归中,人工流产培训的存在与以下因素相关:项目拥有 31 名或更多住院医师;所在州的人工流产准入受到保护;不隶属于天主教;项目主任认为人工流产培训应成为 FMRP 的常规培训:尽管半数以上的受访女性生殖健康项目报告了一些人工流产培训,但大部分都是选修课,40%的项目完全没有人工流产培训。尽管在禁止人工流产的州,人工流产培训受到严格限制或禁止,但在可以进行人工流产的州,更多的培训机会可以增加初级保健中人工流产的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Family Medicine
Family Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
21.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Medicine, the official journal of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine, publishes original research, systematic reviews, narrative essays, and policy analyses relevant to the discipline of family medicine, particularly focusing on primary care medical education, health workforce policy, and health services research. Journal content is not limited to educational research from family medicine educators; and we welcome innovative, high-quality contributions from authors in a variety of specialties and academic fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信