ACOG Committee opinion no. 612: Abortion training and education

The importance of abortion training for obstetrician-gynecologists: A comparison of the United States, Sweden, and Ghana

Since 2020, World Health Organization guidelines state that universal access to abortion care is critical for individual and community health, and for the realization of human rights. Yet the right to access safe abortion care is severely restricted in many countries. This article outlines institutional and educational systems in the USA, Sweden, and Ghana, which all require obstetrics and gynecology (ob-gyn) training to include abortion care but vary in implementation. It argues that regardless of the political environment, the specialty should protect abortion training worldwide. In Sweden and Ghana, ob-gyn residents are required to participate in abortion training, while in the USA they are permitted to opt out. In Sweden, practicing ob-gyn specialists are required to provide abortion care, whereas in Ghana and the USA, this care is optional, leading to geographic disparities in abortion care access in these two countries. In the USA, the Supreme Court's Dobbs ruling jeopardizes programs' abilities to meet the training mandate, a requirement that was insufficiently implemented even before the ruling. It is critical that all clinicians are well-equipped to provide accurate information to their patients and provide pre- and post-abortion care. For this reason, we recommend that abortion is included in all undergraduate medical education programs in accordance with the recommendations of FIGO (the International Federation of Gynecology & Obstetrics). To meet WHO guidelines that require ob-gyn specialists to provide abortion care in an emergency, we urge FIGO to create a guideline about expectations for abortion training integration in obstetrics and gynecology.

Contraception and abortion attitudes among military medical students: An exploratory study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate military medical students' attitudes toward contraception and abortion after clerkships.

STUDY DESIGN

We adapted a survey of civilian medical student attitudes for military students. We asked how clerkships changed perspectives and comfort discussing these topics.

RESULTS

Eighty-five (85%) of 100 respondents felt more comfortable discussing contraception and abortion after clerkships. More students changed perspectives on contraception than abortion (29% vs 17%, p = 0.043). Students noted limited exposure to abortion.

CONCLUSIONS

Clerkships increased comfort discussing contraception and abortion but were unlikely to change their attitudes.

IMPLICATIONS

More exposure to abortion care is needed.

Trainee Perspectives Regarding the Effect of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court Decision on Obstetrics and Gynecology Training

Objectives: We aimed to describe obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) trainees' anticipation of how the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs) U.S. Supreme Court decision may affect their training. Methods: A REDCap survey of OBGYN residents and fellows in the United States from September 19, 2022, to December 1, 2022, queried trainees' anticipated achievement of relevant Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) training milestones, their concerns about the ability to provide care and concern about legal repercussions during training, and the importance of OBGYN competence in managing certain clinical situations for residency graduates. The primary outcome was an ACGME program trainee feeling uncertain or unable to obtain the highest level queried for a relevant ACGME milestone, including experiencing 20 abortion procedures in residency. Results: We received 469 eligible responses; the primary outcome was endorsed by 157 respondents (33.5%). After correction for confounders, significant predictors of the primary outcome were state environment (aOR = 3.94 for pending abortion restrictions; aOR = 2.71 for current abortion restrictions), trainee type (aOR = 0.21 for fellow vs. resident), and a present or past Ryan Training Program in residency (aOR = 0.55). Although the vast majority of trainees believed managing relevant clinical situations are key to OBGYN competence, 10%-30% of trainees believed they would have to stop providing the standard of care in clinical situations during training. Conclusions: This survey of OBGYN trainees indicates higher uncertainty about achieving ACGME milestones and procedural competency in clinical situations potentially affected by the Dobbs decision in states with legal restrictions on abortion.

Abortion education: What are future physicians learning in medical school?

OBJECTIVES

The last nationwide evaluation of abortion education in undergraduate medical schools was conducted by Espey et al. more than 15 years ago. To better understand what medical schools are teaching medical students about abortion care, we conducted a brief assessment of abortion education and training at U.S. medical schools.

STUDY DESIGN

In April 2019, the study team emailed a three-item survey to the obstetrics and gynecology clerkship directors at Association of American Medical Colleges-accredited U.S. allopathic medical schools (n = 143). The multiple-choice survey assessed the availability and type of reproductive health education students had during their preclinical and clinical experiences.

RESULTS

Ninety-one (64%) medical schools responded. Fifty-four (59%) schools reported abortion education as part of their preclinical curriculum, with 26 (29%) dedicating at least one lecture to abortion education. Sixty-seven (74%) institutions provided a clinical abortion experience for students, with 24 (26%) indicating students had to arrange participation on their own. Nine programs (10%) reported offering no formal abortion education.

CONCLUSIONS

While the availability of abortion education has increased since the last nationwide survey in 2005, discrepancies in the education offered persist, and many medical students remain without access to this training.

IMPLICATIONS

Although abortion plays an essential role in women's health services, discrepancies in training opportunities limit abortion education in U.S. medical schools. Gaps in the education of medical students may have downstream effects on the availability of doctors who are trained in providing medically-safe abortions.

Delays in Obtaining Abortion and Miscarriage Care Among Pregnant Persons in New York State During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The CAP Study

Background

We sought to investigate delays obtaining abortion and miscarriage care during the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with before the pandemic, among pregnant persons in New York State (NYS).

Methods

We administered a cross-sectional survey in June-July 2020 to NYS residents aged 18-44 years who identified as female or transgender male (N = 1,525). This analysis focused on a subsample who had an abortion or miscarriage during COVID-19, were seeking an abortion at the time of the survey, or had an abortion or miscarriage before COVID-19 (n = 116). We conducted bivariate analyses to determine differences in delays to seeking or obtaining an abortion or miscarriage during versus before the pandemic, as well as consideration of abortion among those pregnant during versus before the pandemic. We also asked open-ended questions about miscarriage and abortion experiences.

Main Findings

Of the 21 respondents who sought or were seeking an abortion during the COVID-19 pandemic, 76.2% (n = 16) reported experiencing a delay in obtaining abortion care, compared with 18.2% (n = 4) of those who experienced a delay before the pandemic (p < 0.001). A significantly higher proportion of respondents who were pregnant during the pandemic considered abortion, compared with those who gave birth before the pandemic (39.1% vs. 7.6%; p < 0.001). Of the 39 respondents who miscarried during the pandemic, 35.9% (n = 14) delayed care, compared with 5.9% (n = 2) before the pandemic (p < 0.01). Some respondents also commented on the difficulty of accessing miscarriage services during COVID-19 in open-ended responses.

Principal Conclusions

Those who sought abortion or miscarriage care during the COVID-19 pandemic experienced significant delays in getting care. These are essential services that must be available during public health emergencies, and yet access to these services is now severely limited in many states due to the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.

Understanding pre-residency abortion training pathways and career choices in the United States: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Many factors contribute to the decision to provide abortion in the United States. We aim to describe pre-residency experiences and decisions that contribute to choosing a career as an abortion provider in the United States.

METHODS

We conducted 60-min semi-structured telephone interviews with 34 current abortion care providers about their career trajectories, decision-making and planning. Interviews were transcribed and coded by three members of the research team using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A majority of the participants considered (73.5%, n=25) and firmly committed (62.8%, n=22) to providing abortion care prior to entering residency. They described important professional experiences with women's health and reproductive rights, as well as personal experiences with abortion care, all of which inspired them to seek out abortion training during medical school and residency. Participants also described a dearth of mentors or role models until late in training, especially for family physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that the decision to provide abortion care is often made prior to residency training, before or during medical school, so additional support may be needed to promote exposure to abortion care during undergraduate medical education or even before. Further, there is a need for improved mentorship and role modelling during these periods, especially for family physicians. This may be especially critical after the overturn of Roe v Wade, as medical schools in restrictive states may not be able to provide abortions to patients, depriving students of role models who are abortion providers.

A global study on the abortion views and knowledge of trainee obstetrician-gynecologists

OBJECTIVE

To assess the knowledge and views of trainee obstetrician-gynecologists (ObGyn) on abortion.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of trainee ObGyn was conducted by the World Association of Trainees in Obstetrics and Gynecology. A study-specific questionnaire designed using Google Forms® was utilized for the study. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to study participants, to gather information on their sociodemographic characteristics, opinions, knowledge, and training on abortion. Collected data were analyzed using the IBM SPSS, version 25.

RESULTS

Most (140, 74.8%) trainee ObGyn reported that abortion was legal in their countries and most (171, 91.4%) supported the legalization of abortion. Eleven (5.9%) trainees who did not support the legalization of abortion cited religious concerns as their most common reason (5/11, 45.5%). Nearly three-quarters (133, 71.1%) of the trainees would perform an abortion on request. Most of the trainees reported that abortion education was included in the medical school curricula (131, 70.1%) and the ObGyn residency training programs (155, 82.9%) in their countries. Notwithstanding, 36.4% (68) either did not know or did not correctly know the legal status of abortion in their countries.

CONCLUSION

There is some disparity between ObGyn trainees' knowledge of safe abortion and their awareness of the legality of the same in their countries. There is a need for all countries to include abortion education in the curricula of medical schools and all ObGyn residency programs should offer abortion training to all residents. There is a need for increased advocacy for the legalization of abortion in countries where abortion remains criminalized.

Effects of the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization Decision on Obstetrics and Gynecology Graduating Residents' Practice Plans

OBJECTIVE

To explore the association of the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization ( Dobbs ) decision on future practice locations of graduating obstetrics and gynecology residents.

METHODS

This is a mixed-methods survey study of obstetrics and gynecology residents graduating from sites with Ryan Program abortion training programs (109 sites) between March 8, 2023, and April 25, 2023. We conducted both univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify factors that were associated with post- Dobbs change in career plans, particularly location. We also performed a thematic analysis using responses to the survey's optional, open-ended prompt, "Please describe how the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision impacted your professional plans."

RESULTS

Of an estimated 724 residents graduating from residencies with Ryan Program abortion training programs, 349 participated in the survey (48.2% response rate); 17.6% of residents indicated that the Dobbs decision changed the location of intended future practice or fellowship plans. Residents who before the Dobbs decision intended to practice in abortion-restrictive states were eight times more likely to change their practice plans than those who planned to practice in protected states before the Dobbs decision (odds ratio 8.52, 95% CI 3.81-21.0). In a thematic analysis of open-ended responses, 90 residents wrote responses related to "not living in a state with abortion restrictions." Of residents pursuing fellowship, 36 indicated that they did not rank or ranked lower programs in restrictive states.

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrate reduced desire of residents in obstetrics and gynecology to practice or pursue fellowship in restrictive states after residency. This reduction in obstetrics and gynecology workforce could significantly exacerbate maternity care deserts.

Privileging Midwives for Abortion Care

Since the US Supreme Court overturned Dobbs v Jackson, expanded access to abortion has been critical. Abortion is safe, and related complications are rare. The safety of abortion provision by advanced practice clinicians (APCs) is well documented. Despite the increase in targeted restrictions for patients and clinicians in many states post-Dobbs, in recent years there have been meaningful gains in recognition and codification of abortion as part of an expanded scope of practice for APCs. Thus, creating a formal written pathway for midwives to obtain privileges in abortion provision could also improve abortion access. In New York City's public health care system, the largest in the United States, midwives provide a significant portion of perinatal and gynecologic care. Yet, until recently, a process to privilege midwives in the provision of abortion services did not exist. In response, midwives and physicians at a large New York City hospital system sought key stakeholder support to develop a pathway for certified nurse-midwives and certified midwives, licensed midwives in New York state, to obtain the necessary training needed for independent abortion provision. This article describes the development of a midwifery-led pilot program to improve abortion access by increasing the availability of trained midwifery abortion providers, along with the results of staff meetings exploring attitudes toward abortion care by APCs. We report our safety statistics from this pilot program and share existing evidence for safety of abortion provision by midwives and other APCs.

Knowledge, attitude, and intended practice of abortion among pharmacy students in Thailand after the amendment of the Thai Abortion Law

BACKGROUND

The recently amended Thai abortion law allows pregnant women to undergo abortions up to the gestational age of 12 weeks. Medical abortion is significant because it has revolutionized access to safe abortion care-abortion medicine can now be safely and effectively administered outside of a healthcare facility to women in early pregnancy. This contribution supports the pharmacists' role in interprofessional safe abortion teamwork. Adequate knowledge of the current laws regarding safe abortion services will increase pharmacists' competence in providing services. However, safe abortions as a subject have not been formally incorporated into the curriculum for Thai pharmacy students. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the knowledge, attitude, and intended practice of fifth-year pharmacy students at Chulalongkorn University.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted using an electronic self-administered questionnaire adapted from previously published studies to evaluate participants' knowledge of the recently amended Thai abortion law, attitude toward abortion, and intended practices. The invitations were sent to all fifth-year pharmacy students at Chulalongkorn University.

RESULTS

Among all invitations sent, 104/150 (69.3%) participants responded to the survey. Only a third of the participants (31.7%) had good knowledge scores. Based on five questions regarding the gestational age limit for legal abortion, most participants (52.7%) answered questions incorrectly. Although more than half of the participants (52.5%) disagreed with two pro-choice statements, an overwhelming majority (87.5%) agreed that abortion was a woman's right. Safe abortion services were mostly agreed upon with serious fetal defects (91.9%), non-HIV maternal health conditions (82.2%), and sexual assaults (77.4%). A positive attitude toward abortion affects the intention to perform an abortion under socioeconomic conditions.

CONCLUSION

Most participants lacked knowledge on the amended abortion law, especially on the gestational limits of abortion. Participants with favorable attitudes toward abortion tended to be more liberal regarding safe abortion services.

Medical student-led implementation of preclinical abortion didactic session at a California medical school

BACKGROUND

Formal education surrounding abortion care during pre-clinical years of medical school is limited and will likely decrease with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. This study describes and evaluates the impact of an original abortion didactic session implemented during the pre-clinical years of medical school.

METHODS

We implemented a didactic session at the University of California Irvine outlining abortion epidemiology, pregnancy options counseling, standard abortion care, and the current legislative landscape surrounding abortion. The preclinical session also included an interactive, small group case-based discussion. Pre-session and post-session surveys were obtained to evaluate changes in participants' knowledge and attitudes and to collect feedback for future sessions.

RESULTS

92 matched pre- and post-session surveys were completed and analyzed (response rate 77%). The majority of the respondents identified themselves as more "pro-choice" compared to "pro-life" on the pre-session survey. Results reflected significantly increased comfort discussing abortion care and significantly increased knowledge about abortion prevalence and techniques after the session. Qualitative feedback was overwhelmingly positive and reflected participants' appreciation for the focus on the medical aspects of abortion care as opposed to an ethical discussion.

CONCLUSIONS

Abortion education targeted to preclinical medical students can be implemented effectively by a medical student cohort with institutional support.

Survey of colleges and schools of pharmacy to determine restrictions for teaching, research, and advocacy related to contraception

INTRODUCTION

The pharmacist's role in reproductive health is evolving. Since 46 states allow providers to refuse to provide reproductive health services, it is important to consider whether learning is impacted by institution restrictions on contraception teaching, advocacy, and research.

METHODS

An electronic survey was emailed to deans of all pharmacy schools on the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Institutional Membership list with a request to share with faculty teaching women's health content within their curriculum. The survey collected information about contraception teaching, research, and advocacy.

RESULTS

Of 145 schools contacted, 39 (27%) provided complete responses. Of these, 22 (56%) were public, not religiously-affiliated, seven (18%) were private, not religiously-affiliated, six (15%) were private, currently religiously-affiliated, and four were (10%) private, historically religiously-affiliated. All respondents taught hormonal contraception in the required curriculum and 15 (39%) taught miscarriage management/abortifacients. None reported restrictions on contraception teaching or research. One respondent cited an advocacy restriction for contraception methods due to violation of the school's beliefs, and another cited an advocacy restriction for miscarriage management/abortifacients. Respondents noted students expressed ethical questions/concerns about refusing to dispense contraception (59%), dispensing certain contraceptives (54%), dispensing to minors (46%), and dispensing all contraceptives (21%). Additionally, respondents reported pharmacists/faculty expressed ethical questions/concerns about refusing to dispense contraception (31%), dispensing to minors (21%), dispensing certain contraceptives (15%), and all contraceptives (13%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, respondents reported no restrictions in contraception teaching and scholarship and minimal advocacy restrictions. Faculty should consider ethical questions/concerns from students, faculty, and pharmacists when teaching this material.

Abortion providers in the United States: expanding beyond obstetrics and gynecology

In the years preceding the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) decision, there had been a shift in the demographics of abortion providers. Although most abortion providers were obstetricians-gynecologists, there had been a rapid increase in the number of internal medicine and family medicine physicians and advanced practice clinicians providing abortion care. As discourse about limiting abortion access has gained volume over the past few years, so have the number of legislative restrictions aimed at preventing people from seeking abortions. Among these are laws and policies targeted at reducing the number of providers and clinics providing abortion care, resulting in an absence of training, high case volume, and institutional restrictions. With the overturning of Roe v Wade, the landscape of abortion provision will continue to shift further. Action needs to be taken to expand the types of providers getting trained and providing abortions to ensure access for those seeking abortions.

"They were there because they were pregnant. Which is a really apolitical thing"-Medical student discussions of politics in abortion care in the United States

OBJECTIVES

State abortion policies can vary widely. Geographic location and political climate could influence a medical student's abortion education experience. We compared how medical students training in one permissive and one restrictive state discussed politics in abortion care.

STUDY DESIGN

From 2018 to 2019, we interviewed US medical students during their Obstetrics and Gynecology rotation from two Midwestern academic centers with differing state abortion policies-one in Ohio (restrictive) and one in Illinois (permissive). In-depth interviews occurred following an abortion shadowing experience and included questions about politics in abortion care. We sorted data using flexible coding, with index codes around "politics," followed by specific analytic coding. We compared codes by medical school using NVIVO software.

RESULTS

We interviewed 28 students (50% in Ohio). Students in Ohio discussed specific barriers to patient care and how politics infringed upon the quality of medical care, describing abortion as stigmatized care. Students in Illinois described abortion as high-quality medical care, delivered without the infringement of restrictive laws. Students at both schools described their medical school climates as supportive to abortion, yet in Ohio, students described exposure to more diverse abortion views than Illinois students. Ohio students also described engaging in abortion advocacy work, while Illinois students felt more politically disconnected.

CONCLUSIONS

Even as clinical training opportunities decline, restrictive states may hold unique advocacy opportunities. Educators should tailor abortion curricula to address state level differences, as disparities in abortion access and student learning opportunities widen.

IMPLICATIONS

Students training in permissive states see abortion as routine health care, occurring without political interference. Students in restrictive states see abortion as hindered by politics and stigmatized, which may encourage advocacy. Educators should tailor curricula to address state level differences as disparities in abortion access and student learning opportunities widen.

"We had to put ourselves in their shoes": Experiences of Medical Students and ObGyn Residents with a Values Clarification Workshop on Abortion

Purpose

Values clarification workshops on abortion have been shown to increase support for abortion among healthcare workers. However, few studies have examined the impact of values clarification workshops on abortion among medical trainees. This study aimed to understand medical student and obstetrics and gynecology (ObGyn) residents' experiences with a virtual values clarification workshop on abortion.

Methods

Clerkship year medical students and ObGyn residents at four midwestern teaching hospitals were invited to be interviewed about their experiences in a virtual values clarification workshop on abortion from January 2021 through December 2021. A single interviewer conducted interviews via Zoom using a standardized interview guide. Participants were asked to provide feedback and discuss their experiences in the workshop. Four qualitatively trained evaluators coded the interview transcripts in NVivo, using an inductive approach to establish consensus codes then themes.

Results

This study interviewed 37 trainees, including 24 medical students and 13 ObGyn residents, as well as five facilitators, between November 2021 and February 2022. Three themes emerged in both trainee groups. First, participants found the workshops helped trainees clarify and understand their own views on abortion through thought exploration, peer validation, and reflection on their views' potential societal impacts. Second, through the workshop, participants reflected on others' opinions on abortion and better understood the spectrum of beliefs their peers held. Finally, participants found the workshops helped them explore and develop their professional identity as physicians-in-training, through practicing communication skills and building trust and mutual respect among peers.

Conclusions

Medical trainees found values clarification workshops on abortion to be valuable, helping them establish their own beliefs about abortion, contextualize these beliefs among their peers', and practice professionalism. These findings indicate that values clarification workshops can play a key role in helping medical trainees discuss abortion and prepare for their professional future.

Now is the time to stand up for reproductive justice and abortion access

The ongoing assault on abortion care in the United States culminating in the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v Wade calls for concerted national action to address the major gaps in care and training that will ensue. We write this call to action to our community of obstetrician-gynecologists to prioritize advocacy for access to abortion care. Professional health organizations understand the importance of access to contraception and abortion care as the foundation for reproductive health, autonomy, and empowerment. As restrictions proliferate, patients are encountering significant challenges in accessing care; all in our community who provide obstetrical and gynecologic care need to step up to ensure adequate and equitable patient care and provider training. In this Clinical Opinion, we outline current professional organization evidence-based support for comprehensive reproductive health care including abortion care, without interference by politics, strategies to proactively prevent further restrictions, and actions to mitigate the harm that will be caused by further restrictions to abortion care. We must all speak up, be visible in our support, and take any and every opportunity to advocate for abortion care as an integral part of comprehensive reproductive medical care.

The ongoing crisis of abortion care education and training in the United States

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The Dobbs vs Jackson case (Dobbs) decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in 2022 rescinded the constitutional right to abortion care, resulting in immediate state bans and severe restrictions on abortion care in almost half of the states at the time of submission. This article reviews the current state of abortion education and training as well as available curricula and programmes to support continued training.

RECENT FINDINGS

Prior to Dobbs, a national residency-level training programme, the Ryan Residency Training Program, has helped expand abortion care training in residency programs nationally, yet there remained many barriers to incorporating this training into practice, including practice and hospital restrictions. New state restrictions now additionally constrain almost half of all the Ob-Gyn residency programmes. Medical students benefit from education on options counselling and values exploration.

SUMMARY

Abortion care education and training is in crisis. Almost half of the Ob-Gyn residents are training in states that have banned or severely restricted abortion care. This threatens to create a workforce without critical early pregnancy management knowledge and skills. Residents are more likely to provide abortion care when they have scheduled routine training. Medical students can apply options counselling and values exploration knowledge broadly. Online education resources provide some patchwork solutions to continue abortion care education and training in this heavily restrictive landscape.

"Post-Roe" Abortion Policy Context Heightens the Imperative for Multilevel, Comprehensive, Integrated Health Education

The exceptionalism of abortion in public health education, due to social stigma, politicization, and lack of training, contributes to misinformation, policies unjustified by rigorous science, lack of access to person-centered health care, and systemic pregnancy-related inequities. Now that abortion access has vanished for large portions of the United States, following the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (JWHO), health educators must work to eliminate abortion-related silos, destigmatize abortion education, and bring comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information and evidence to the many audiences that will require it. We discuss consequences of abortion exceptionalism in health education for the public, health care providers, pregnant people, and health professionals in training-and opportunities to better and more accessibly provide sexual and reproductive health education to these audiences.

Support Systems and Limitations in Therapeutic Abortion Care by the Gynecologist-Obstetrician of Public Hospitals in Peru

OBJECTIVE

 To identify the barriers to provide to women and adequately train physicians on therapeutic abortions in public hospitals in Peru.

METHODS

 Descriptive cross-sectional survey-based study. We invited 400 obstetrics and gynecology specialists from 7 academic public hospitals in Lima and 8 from other regions of Peru. Expert judges validated the survey.

RESULTS

 We collected survey results from 160 participants that met the inclusion criteria. Of those, 63.7% stated that the hospital where they work does not offer abortion training. Most of the participants consider that the position of the Peruvian government regarding therapeutic abortion is indifferent or deficient. The major limitations to provide therapeutic abortions included Peruvian law (53.8%), hospital policies (18.8%), and lack of experts (10.6%).

CONCLUSION

 Most surveyed physicians supported therapeutic abortions and showed interest in improving their skills. However, not all hospitals offer training and education. The limited knowledge of the physicians regarding the law and institutional policies, as well as fear of ethical, legal, and religious repercussions, were the main barriers for providing abortions.

Increasing Access to Abortion: ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 815

Individuals require access to safe, legal abortion. Abortion, although legal, is increasingly out of reach because of numerous restrictions imposed by the government that target patients seeking abortion and their health care practitioners. Insurance coverage restrictions, which take many forms, constitute a substantial barrier to abortion access and increase reproductive health inequities. Adolescents, people of color, those living in rural areas, those with low incomes, and incarcerated people can face disproportionate effects of restrictions on abortion access. Stigma and fear of violence may be less tangible than legislative and financial restrictions, but are powerful barriers to abortion provision nonetheless. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, along with other medical organizations, opposes such interference with the patient-clinician relationship, affirming the importance of this relationship in the provision of high-quality medical care. This revision includes updates based on new restrictions and litigation related to abortion.

Medication Abortion Up to 70 Days of Gestation

Medication abortion, also referred to as medical abortion, is a safe and effective method of providing abortion. Medication abortion involves the use of medicines rather than uterine aspiration to induce an abortion. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medication abortion regimen includes mifepristone and misoprostol. The purpose of this document is to provide updated evidence-based guidance on the provision of medication abortion up to 70 days (or 10 weeks) of gestation. Information about medication abortion after 70 days of gestation is provided in other ACOG publications [1].

Access to abortion training

The changing political landscape has had a significant impact on abortion training in the United States. Access to training in medical and surgical abortion has been improving over the past several decades, though significant barriers exist in training providers adequately. We sought to evaluate access to abortion training to providers, including obstetrician-gynecologists, family practice physicians, and advanced practice providers. Training in contraception, miscarriage management, medication abortion and surgical abortion procedures is a requirement for Obstetrics and Gynecology residents. Limited information exists about the details of residency training, though larger percentages of graduating residents are reporting access to comprehensive family planning training. Initiatives by groups such as Medical Students for Choice and the Kenneth J. Ryan Program have greatly improved access to abortion training by increasing opportunities for resident involvement. Abortion training opportunities exist for Family Medicine residents and advanced practice clinicians, though this training is not mandated and as such, often not standardized. In light of increasingly restrictive legislation and decreasing numbers of abortion providers, concerns exist about the sustainability of abortion training access. Other noteworthy barriers to provider training include hospital policy, lack of expert faculty, and state laws. Ensuring integrated evidence-based and standardized abortion training is important in maintaining access to a full range of family planning services.

[Conscientious objectors in Chilean medical education]

The Chilean Law regulating the voluntary interruption of pregnancy, contemplates the possibility that health personnel may refrain from doing the procedure if they have stated that they are conscientious objectors (CO). There are numerous articles on the subject. However, the impact on medical training centers when a student or resident abstain from performing certain clinical procedures invoking CO, has seldom been analyzed. In this article, we explore the rights and duties of the CO students to perform an abortion or other clinical procedures for either religious or cultural reasons. Based on international experience, we recommend that all health care centers should have established and publicly known policies on this matter. Finally, we honor CO invoked by students, based on three general principles. First, the autonomy and moral integrity of the students should be respected. Second, an adequate ethical sensitivity is promoted. Third, it contributes to the necessary heterogeneity and diversity of students, promoting a desirable pluralism. However, certain interests and values, such as the well-being of patients, must be considered over and above accepting the CO requests.

The importance of access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion: a statement from women's health professional organizations

Barriers to women's reproductive health care access, particularly for termination of pregnancy, are increasing at the local, regional, and national levels through numerous institutional, legislative, and regulatory restrictions. Lack of access to reproductive health care has negative consequences for women's health. Twelve women's health care organizations affirm their support for access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion.

Provider Conscientious Refusal of Abortion, Obstetrical Emergencies, and Criminal Homicide Law

Catholic doctrine's strict prohibition on abortion can lead clinicians or institutions to conscientiously refuse to provide abortion, although a legal duty to provide abortion would apply to anyone who refused. Conscientious refusals by clinicians to end a pregnancy can constitute murder or reckless homicide under American law if a woman dies as a result of such a refusal. Such refusals are not immunized from criminal liability by the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion or by statutes that confer immunity from criminal homicide prosecution. Core principles of the rule of law require the state to protect the lives of all persons equally and to place the life and health of persons above any the interests of providers have in moral integrity or in respecting the moral status of prenatal humans. In some states criminal liability related to conscientious objection also applies to corporate hospital officials.

Abortion training in US obstetrics and gynecology residency programs

BACKGROUND

Nearly 15 years ago, 51% of US obstetrics and gynecology residency training program directors reported that abortion training was routine, 39% reported training was optional, and 10% did not have training. The status of abortion training now is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the current status of abortion training in obstetrics and gynecology residency programs.

STUDY DESIGN

Through surveying program directors of US obstetrics and gynecology residency training programs, we conducted a cross-sectional study on the availability and characteristics of abortion training. Training was defined as routine if included in residents' schedules with individuals permitted to opt out, optional as not in the residents' schedules but available for individuals to arrange, and not available. Findings were compared between types of programs using bivariate analyses.

RESULTS

In all, 190 residency program directors (79%) responded. A total of 64% reported routine training with dedicated time, 31% optional, and 5% not available. Routine, scheduled training was correlated with higher median numbers of uterine evacuation procedures. While the majority believed their graduates to be competent in first-trimester aspiration (71%), medication abortion (66%), and induction termination (67%), only 22% thought graduates were competent in dilation and evacuation. Abortion procedures varied by clinical indication, with some programs limiting cases to pregnancy complication, fetal anomaly, or demise.

CONCLUSION

Abortion training in obstetrics and gynecology residency training programs has increased since 2004, yet many programs graduate residents without sufficient training to provide abortions for any indication, as well as dilation and evacuation. Professional training standards and support for family planning training have coincided with improved training, but there are still barriers to understand and overcome.

Second-trimester surgical abortion practices in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether second-trimester surgical abortion practices of U.S. providers agree with evidence-based policy guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of abortion facilities in the U.S. identified via publicly available resources and professional networks from June through December 2013.

RESULTS

Of 703 identified facilities, 383 (54%) participated, including 172 clinicians providing second-trimester surgical abortions (dilation and evacuations [D&Es]). The majority of clinicians were obstetrician-gynecologists (87%), female (67%), and less than 50 years old (62%). Most clinicians (93%) ever use misoprostol as a cervical preparation agent, including in the setting of a uterine scar (87%). Some clinicians refer to a hospital-based provider if the patient has a placenta previa and a history of cesarean section (31%) or a complete previa alone (17%). Many clinicians have weight or body mass index restrictions for cases performed under iv moderate sedation (32/97, 33%) or deep sedation (23/50, 46%). Most clinicians (69%) who report performing D&Es at 18 weeks last menstrual period or greater do not routinely induce fetal demise preoperatively. Clinicians employ routine intraoperative ultrasound (79%) more commonly than routine postoperative ultrasound (47%), with no difference by years of provider experience. Most clinicians routinely use prophylactic uterotonic agents, most often postoperatively. Most clinicians (80%) routinely give perioperative antibiotics, most often doxycycline (75%).

CONCLUSION

Overall, the second-trimester surgical abortion practices revealed in our survey agree with professional evidence-based policy guidelines. Wider variability was reported for practices lacking a strong evidence base.

IMPLICATIONS

In this third cross-sectional survey of U.S. abortion practices (prior 1997 and 2002), second-trimester surgical abortion providers are younger than before, reflecting an improvement in the "graying" of the abortion provider workforce. Facility restrictions on gestational age along with hospital restrictions on referrals pose barriers to outpatient abortion access.

Impact of Catholic Hospital Affiliation During Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency on the Provision of Family Planning

BACKGROUND

Catholic hospitals operate under the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, which for obstetrics and gynecology residents may create barriers to receiving adequate training in family planning.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated how training at a Catholic hospital affects trainees' subsequent provision of reproductive health services at secular institutions.

METHODS

This qualitative study used semistructured interviews with recent obstetrics and gynecology graduates in generalist practice at secular institutions. We queried about their training experiences, perceived deficiencies, and current provision of family planning services. Three researchers independently coded transcripts, using grounded theory.

RESULTS

We reached thematic saturation after 15 of 31 graduates (48%) from 7 Catholic hospital residencies participated in interviews between June 2014 and February 2015. Many participants reported a lack of awareness regarding limitations on this aspect of their training. All participants reported reproductive health care training deficiencies, and many explained that "elective" training required resident initiative to obtain. After graduation, participants reported dissatisfaction with training in family planning, delayed competency in this area, and a lack of ability to provide certain family planning procedures. All felt that Catholic programs should improve family planning training by providing routine, opt-out family planning opportunities.

CONCLUSIONS

Obstetricians and gynecologists who trained at Catholic institutions felt that religion-based policies negatively affected their training experiences and the range of reproductive health services they subsequently provide in practice. Forming collaborations with off-site facilities, particularly for postpartum tubal ligation and uterine evacuation, may improve the reproductive care these physicians ultimately provide to women.

Threats to reproductive health care: time for obstetrician-gynecologists to get involved

To be healthy, support their families, and be productive members of their communities, women must have access to comprehensive reproductive health services including treatment of miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy and access to abortion, sterilization, and other contraceptive methods. However, in the United States, hospitals and legislative bodies are erecting barriers and limiting access to these basic health care services. These barriers are caused by factors such as hospital mergers (specifically those that are religiously affiliated); federal, state, and local legislation; hospital policies; and business-related decisions are threatening reproductive health care. Such barriers, of which women are often not even aware, put women at real risk of harm. This commentary provides clinical examples of these harms and recommends ways that obstetrician-gynecologists can get involved to publicize the consequences of these barriers and, hopefully, prevent them from occurring or break them down to promote women's health.

Abortion training in Canadian obstetrics and gynecology residency programs

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the current state of abortion training in Canadian Obstetrics and Gynecology residency programs.

STUDY DESIGN

Surveys were distributed to all Canadian Obstetrics and Gynecology residents and program directors. Data were collected on inclusion of abortion training in the curriculum, structure of the training and expected competency of residents in various abortion procedures.

RESULTS

We distributed and collected surveys between November 2014 and May 2015. In total, 301 residents and 15 program directors responded, giving response rates of 55% and 94%, respectively. Based on responses by program directors, half of the programs had "opt-in" abortion training, and half of the programs had "opt-out" abortion training. Upon completion of residency, 66% of residents expected to be competent in providing first-trimester surgical abortion in an ambulatory setting, and 35% expected to be competent in second-trimester surgical abortion. Overall, 15% of residents reported that they were not aware of or did not have access to abortion training within their program, and 69% desired more abortion training during residency.

CONCLUSION

Abortion training in Canadian Obstetrics and Gynecology residency programs is inconsistent, and residents desire more training in abortion. This suggests an ongoing unmet need for training in this area. Policies mandating standardized abortion training in obstetrics and gynecology residency programs are necessary to improve delivery of family planning services to Canadian women.

IMPLICATIONS

Abortion training in Canadian Obstetrics and Gynecology residency programs is inconsistent, does not meet resident demand and is unlikely to fulfill the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada objectives of training in the specialty.

Four Residents' Narratives on Abortion Training: A Residency Climate of Reflection, Support, and Mutual Respect

The decision on the part of obstetrics and gynecology residents to opt in or out of abortion training is, for many, a complex one. Although the public debate surrounding abortion can be filled with polarizing rhetoric, residents often discover that the boundaries between pro-choice and pro-life beliefs are not so neatly divided. We present narratives from four residents, training at a 32-resident program in the Northeast, who have a range of views surrounding abortion. Their stories reveal how some struggle with the real-life experience of providing abortions, while others feel angst over lacking the skills to terminate a life-threatening pregnancy. These residents have found that close relationships with coworkers from all sides of this issue, along with a residency program that encourages open conversation, have fostered understanding. Their narratives demonstrate that reasonable providers can disagree fundamentally and still work effectively with one another and that the close relationships formed in residency can allow both sides to see beyond the black and white of the public abortion debate. Our objectives in this commentary are to encourage a more nuanced discussion of abortion among obstetrician-gynecologists, to describe the aspects of our residency program that facilitate open dialogue and respect across diverse viewpoints, and to demonstrate that the clear distinction between being pro-life and pro-choice often breaks down when one is immediately responsible for the care of pregnant women.