BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health最新文献_第3页

Incorporating contraceptive shared decision-making into consultations for individuals with epilepsy: facilitating a holistic and dynamic approach. 将避孕共同决策纳入癫痫患者的咨询：促进采用全面和动态的方法。

IF 2.8 3区医学

BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2025-10-08 DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2025-202751

Christine McKnight, Sarah Louise Griffiths, Denitza Williams, Rhiannon Phillips, Sarah Brown, Delyth James

引用次数: 0

Adherence to first-trimester medication abortion in telemedicine versus in-person care: a prospective cohort study in Colombia, 2024. 远程医疗与现场护理中妊娠早期药物流产的依从性：2024年哥伦比亚的一项前瞻性队列研究

IF 2.8 3区医学

BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2025-10-08 DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2025-202796

Biani Saavedra-Avendano, Karen Cárdenas-Garzón, Paola Montenegro-Ramírez, Guillermo Antonio Ortiz-Avendaño

引用次数: 0

Implementing routinely discussing and offering local anaesthesia for intrauterine device insertions. 对宫内节育器置入实施常规讨论并提供局部麻醉。

IF 2.8 3区医学

BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2025-10-08 DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202672

Hannat Akintomide, Catherine McLoughlin, Nataliya Brima, Kathryn Mary Clement

引用次数: 0

Should patient-centred abortion care involve the offer of an ultrasound to all, including those who do not clinically require it? 以病人为中心的流产护理是否包括向所有人提供超声波检查，包括那些临床上不需要的人？

IF 2.8 3区医学

BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2025-10-08 DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202538

Sinead Cook, Carrie Hazel, Sarah Wallage

引用次数: 0

Improving intrauterine contraceptive device follow-up with a scan-only clinic model in a specialist community contraception service. 在专科社区避孕服务中改进仅扫描临床模式的宫内节育器随访。

IF 2.8 3区医学

BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2025-10-08 DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2025-202815

Maryam Nasri, Azza Malik

引用次数: 0

Contraception prescribing practices in three emergency departments. 三个急诊科的避孕处方实践。

IF 2.8 3区医学

BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2025-10-07 DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2025-202875

Alexandra Rockett, Maria Isabel Rodriguez, Kaitlin Schrote, Michael Hildebrand, Esther K Choo

引用次数: 0

Sexual and reproductive health experiences and outcomes of incarcerated women and gender-diverse people in Australia: a scoping review. 澳大利亚被监禁妇女和性别多样化者的性健康和生殖健康经验和成果：范围审查。

IF 2.8 3区医学

BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2025-10-06 DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2025-202903

Clare Heggie, Anna C Noonan, Chloë Fuller, Shelley McKibbon, Martha Paynter

{"title":"Sexual and reproductive health experiences and outcomes of incarcerated women and gender-diverse people in Australia: a scoping review.","authors":"Clare Heggie, Anna C Noonan, Chloë Fuller, Shelley McKibbon, Martha Paynter","doi":"10.1136/bmjsrh-2025-202903","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2025-202903","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Women and gender-diverse people are a fast-growing population in prisons in Australia. Incarceration can create barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive healthcare. The objective of this scoping review was to identify what is known about the sexual and reproductive health experiences, needs and outcomes of women and gender-diverse people incarcerated in Australia.Methods: We used the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for systematic scoping reviews. Databases searched included PsycINFO, Gender Studies Database, MEDLINE and CINAHL. The search yielded 658 titles and abstracts of which 17 met the criteria for inclusion.Results: We identified 17 studies published between 2000 and 2023 across three states. The studies included qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods designs. The main outcomes of interest included: pregnancy and maternal health, contraception, sexually transmitted infections, experiences of sexual violence, and cervical health screening and outcomes.Conclusions: Evidence indicates that women and gender-diverse populations in prison in Australia experience high rates of sexually transmitted infections, poor perinatal health outcomes, and unmet needs related to contraception access and perinatal health services and programmes. The negative health impacts of incarceration are especially pronounced for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander women, who face additional discriminatory institutional barriers to participating in health programmes and experience a lack of culturally safe and appropriate care.","PeriodicalId":9219,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145243728","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Recognising and responding to reproductive coercion in general practice: a qualitative study. 认识和应对生殖强迫在一般做法：一项定性研究。

IF 2.8 3区医学

BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2025-10-05 DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2025-202944

Susan Saldanha, Jessica Botfield, Danielle Mazza

{"title":"Recognising and responding to reproductive coercion in general practice: a qualitative study.","authors":"Susan Saldanha, Jessica Botfield, Danielle Mazza","doi":"10.1136/bmjsrh-2025-202944","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2025-202944","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Reproductive coercion (RC) is a form of gender-based violence that interferes with reproductive autonomy. General practice is a key primary care setting where individuals, particularly women, access support for sexual and reproductive health (SRH). However, limited research explores how general practice clinicians recognise and respond to RC. We aimed to explore how general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses (PNs) recognise and respond to RC in Australian general practice.Methods: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 10 GPs and 6 PNs. Interviews were conducted via Zoom, transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive content analysis.Results: Participants identified consultation-based 'red flags', including partner dominating the consult, patient discomfort, and disruptions in appointment or contraception use, that prompted RC inquiry. Participants proactively asked about RC in SRH consultations, tailoring questions to the context of contraception, pregnancy, or abortion care. Balancing safety, autonomy, and support was described as challenging, especially in cases involving adolescents or women with disabilities where carers or parents influenced patient consent. Participants described practical and patient-centred strategies, such as using telehealth consultations, discreet signals, covert care planning, and whole-of-practice team-based vigilance, to support women experiencing RC in general practice.Conclusions: Findings highlight how general practice clinicians in Australia recognise and respond to RC and can inform the development of clinical guidelines and practice approaches to strengthen recognition and response to RC in general practice.","PeriodicalId":9219,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145238109","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Women's preferences for interconception care: a discrete choice experiment study. 女性对孕间护理的偏好：一项离散选择实验研究。

IF 2.8 3区医学

BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2025-10-05 DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2025-202928

Sharon James, Peiwen Jiang, Jody Church, Edwina Dorney, Danielle Mazza

{"title":"Women's preferences for interconception care: a discrete choice experiment study.","authors":"Sharon James, Peiwen Jiang, Jody Church, Edwina Dorney, Danielle Mazza","doi":"10.1136/bmjsrh-2025-202928","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2025-202928","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Interconception care (ICC), provided between pregnancies, can improve women's health, pregnancy outcomes and infant health. Women face challenges in accessing and prioritising ICC due to issues including caring roles, transport and clinician availability. We aimed to elicit women's preferences for ICC engagement.Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to assess women's preferences about ICC. Australian women who had experienced pregnancy completed an online survey in March 2024 comprised of questions about sociodemographic characteristics, ICC attitudes regarding informational needs, healthcare professional involvement and service location. We used a mixed logit model to analyse DCE responses, willingness to pay estimates for different attribute levels and applied latent class modelling to explore preference heterogeneity. Free text responses were grouped by key ideas.Results: From 191 responses, numbers were similar across age categories, 46% had experienced pregnancy loss, and 87% had a child/children. Respondents preferred ICC provided by a nurse/midwife, offered during home visits or in-person consultations with a child-friendly waiting area, with appointments lasting 30 or 60 min, and at lower costs. There were no strong preferences regarding appointment wait times. Respondents favoured consultations scheduled up to 1 year after delivery. Follow-up questions indicated that most identified informational needs about emotional and mental health support (74.3%) as important, midwives were a preferred healthcare professional (71.7%) and general practice was the most favoured ICC location (64.9%).Conclusions: Ensuring clinician and setting familiarity, longer appointment times and lower appointment costs will support women's access to ICC. Policy and funding support are needed for ICC provision.","PeriodicalId":9219,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145238134","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Safety and efficacy of early medical abortion at home between 10+0 and 11+6 weeks' gestation: a retrospective review. 妊娠10+0 ~ 11+6周早期在家药物流产的安全性和有效性：回顾性分析

IF 2.8 3区医学

BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2025-10-02 DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2025-202947

Jacqueline Quinn, John Joseph Reynolds-Wright, Karen McCabe, Sharon T Cameron

{"title":"Safety and efficacy of early medical abortion at home between 10+0 and 11+6 weeks' gestation: a retrospective review.","authors":"Jacqueline Quinn, John Joseph Reynolds-Wright, Karen McCabe, Sharon T Cameron","doi":"10.1136/bmjsrh-2025-202947","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2025-202947","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Since 2020, legislation in Britain has allowed both mifepristone and misoprostol to be taken at home for early medical abortion (EMA). In England and Wales, legislation restricts this to 9+6 weeks, but in Scotland this is permitted up to 11+6 weeks. Data on the outcomes of EMA at home >10 weeks' gestation is limited and so we aimed to establish the safety and efficacy of this in comparison with EMA in a hospital setting.Methods: We conducted a retrospective review from our abortion service in Edinburgh, Scotland of outcomes of EMA at home versus hospital between 10+0 and 11+6 weeks' gestation over the 5-year period April 2020-March 2025. The primary outcome was complete abortion rate. Secondary outcomes were rates of incomplete abortion, ongoing pregnancy and serious complications.Results: A total of 371 EMAs occurred at this gestation (n=258 home, n=113 hospital). Complete abortion rates were not statistically significantly different between groups: 251/258 (97%) (95% CI: 94% to 99%) at home and 110/113 (97%) (95% CI: 92% to 99%) in hospital. Neither incomplete abortion rates (home: 4/258, 1.6%; hospital: 3/113, 2.6%) nor ongoing pregnancy rates (home: 3/258, 1.2%; hospital: 0/113, 0%) were significantly different between groups. There was one case of haemorrhage requiring transfusion and three cases of infection receiving intravenous antibiotics, all in the at home group.Conclusions: EMA at home between 10+0 and 11+6 weeks has the same high efficacy and safety as when conducted in hospital. Action is needed to extend EMA at home after 10 weeks' gestation to women across the rest of the UK and beyond.","PeriodicalId":9219,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145211739","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0