Physicians' information to patients and prescription of the emergency contraceptive pill according to their personal experience of using the method and perception of its mechanism of action

Methods and Measures to Assess Health Care Provider Behavior and Behavioral Determinants in Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health: A Rapid Review

BACKGROUND

Health care provider behavior is the outcome of a complex set of factors that are both internal and external to the provider. Social and behavior change (SBC) programs are increasingly engaging providers and introducing strategies to improve their service delivery. However, there is limited understanding of methods and measures applied to assess provider behavioral outcomes and strengthen provider behavior change programming.

METHODS

Using PubMed, we conducted a rapid review of published research on behaviors of health workers providing reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health services in low- and middle-income countries (2010-2021). Information on study identifiers (e.g., type of provider), select domains from Green and Kreuter's PRECEDE-PROCEED framework (e.g., predisposing factors such as attitudes), study characteristics (e.g., study type and design), and evidence of theory-driven research were extracted from a final sample of articles (N=89) and summarized.

RESULTS

More than 80% of articles were descriptive/formative and examined knowledge, attitudes, and practice, mostly related to family planning. Among the few evaluation studies, training-focused interventions to increase provider knowledge or improve competency in providing a health service were dominant. Research driven by behavioral theory was observed in only 3 studies. Most articles (75%) focused on the quality of client-provider interaction, though topics and modes of measurement varied widely. Very few studies incorporated a validated scale to measure underlying constructs, such as attitudes and beliefs, and how these may be associated with provider behaviors.

CONCLUSION

A need exists for (1) theory-driven approaches to designing and measuring provider behavior change interventions and (2) measurement that addresses important internal and structural factors related to a provider's behavior (beyond knowledge-enhancing training approaches). Additional investment in implementation research is also needed to better understand which SBC approaches are shifting provider behavior and improving client-provider interactions. Finally, theory-driven approaches could help develop empirically measurable and comparable outcomes.

Why are pediatricians uncomfortable with prescribing emergency contraception for adolescents?

OBJECTIVE

Emergency contraception (EC) is an effective and safe method for preventing unplanned pregnancy after unprotected sexual intercourse among adolescents but is infrequently prescribed by pediatricians. Because of the scarcity of data on the discomfort with EC prescription among physicians in Brazil, this study aimed to identify associated factors with discomfort with EC prescription among pediatricians in the state of Amazonas.

METHODS

A web-based, cross-sectional study including sociodemographic data, knowledge, attitudes, and discomfort with EC prescription was used. Multivariate logistic regression and artificial intelligence methods such as decision tree and random forest analysis were used to identify factors associated with discomfort with EC prescriptions.

RESULTS

Among 151 physicians who responded to the survey, 53.0% were uncomfortable with prescribing EC, whereas only 33.1% had already prescribed it. Inexperience was significantly associated with discomfort with EC prescription (odds ratio 4.47, 95% confidence interval 1.71-11.66). Previous EC prescription was protective against discomfort with EC prescription in the three models.

CONCLUSIONS

EC is still infrequently prescribed by pediatricians because of inexperience and misconceptions. Training these professionals needs to be implemented as part of public health policies to reduce unplanned adolescent pregnancy.

The FDA ought to change Plan B's label

This commentary defends 3 arguments for changing the label of levonorgestrel-based emergency contraception (LNG EC) so that it no longer supports the possibility of a mechanism of action after fertilization. First, there is no direct scientific evidence confirming any postfertilization mechanisms. Second, despite the weight of evidence, there is still widespread public misunderstanding over the mechanism of LNG EC. Third, this FDA label is not a value-free claim, but instead it has functioned like a political tool for reducing contraceptive access. The label is laden with antiabortion values (even though EC is contraception, not abortion), and it imposes these values on potential users, resulting in barriers to access such as with Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. These 3 arguments together provide scientific, social, and ethical grounds for the FDA to take the initiate in changing Plan B's drug label.

Physician Nonprofessional Cancer Experience and Ovarian Cancer Screening Practices: Results from a National Survey of Primary Care Physicians

OBJECTIVE

Routine ovarian cancer screening is ineffective; therefore, no professional organization recommends this screening in asymptomatic patients. However, many physicians have recommended screening, exposing patients to unnecessary risk. Little research exists on how nonprofessional experience with cancer influences physicians' screening practices. This study examines the association between physicians' nonprofessional experience with cancer and reported adherence to ovarian cancer screening guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A mail questionnaire with an annual examination vignette and questions about cancer screening recommendations was sent to a random sample of 3,200 U.S. family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists. This analysis included 497 physicians who received a vignette of a woman at average ovarian cancer risk and weighted results to represent these physician groups nationally. The outcome measure was adherence to ovarian cancer screening guidelines. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression estimated adjusted risk ratios for guideline adherence.

RESULTS

In unadjusted analyses, 86.0% of physicians without nonprofessional cancer experience reported adherence to ovarian cancer screening guidelines compared with 69.2% of physicians with their own history of cancer, or a family member or close friend/coworker with cancer (p = 0.0045). In adjusted analyses, physicians with cancer themselves or in a family member or close friend/coworker were 0.82 times less likely (CI: 0.73-0.92) to report adhering to ovarian cancer screening recommendations than those without nonprofessional cancer experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite recommendations to the contrary, many physicians reported recommending ovarian cancer screening in low-risk women. Physicians with nonprofessional cancer experience were more likely to report offering or ordering nonrecommended screening than physicians without this experience.