Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Women's Health Care Access: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background: There has been limited study of how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected women's health care access. Our study aims to examine the prevalence and correlates of COVID-19-related disruptions to (1) primary care; (2) gynecologic care; and (3) preventive health care among women. Materials and Methods: We recruited 4,000 participants from a probability-based online panel. We conducted four multinomial logistic regression models, one for each of the study outcomes: (1) primary care access; (2) gynecologic care access; (3) patient-initiated disruptions to preventive visits; and (4) provider-initiated disruptions to preventive visits. Results: The sample included 1,285 women. One in four women (28.5%) reported that the pandemic affected their primary care access. Sexual minority women (SMW) (odds ratios [OR]: 1.67; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.19-2.33) had higher odds of reporting pandemic-related effects on primary care access compared to women identifying as heterosexual. Cancer survivors (OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.25-3.42) had higher odds of reporting pandemic-related effects on primary care access compared to women without a cancer history. About 16% of women reported that the pandemic affected their gynecologic care access. Women with a cancer history (OR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.35-4.08) had higher odds of reporting pandemic-related effects on gynecologic care compared to women without a cancer history. SMW were more likely to report patient- and provider-initiated delays in preventive health care. Other factors that affected health care access included income, insurance status, and having a usual source of care. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted women's health care access and disproportionately affected access among SMW and women with a cancer history, suggesting that targeted interventions may be needed to ensure adequate health care access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Do Transgender and Gender Diverse Individuals Receive Adequate Gynecologic Care? An Analysis of a Rural Academic Center

Purpose: The transgender population faces disparities accessing gynecologic health care services, especially in rural settings. There is limited knowledge among medical providers regarding transgender-specific gynecologic care. Methods: A retrospective chart review of 255 transgender and gender diverse patients at a rural, academic center and associated ambulatory clinics was performed. Demographics, insurance status, and utilization rates of screening services, including cervical cancer, breast cancer, human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination status, and contraceptive status, were analyzed using descriptive statistics. These rates were compared with national rates of cisgender individuals. Chi-square tests were performed to assess the association of insurance status with receipt of services. Results: Prevalence of HPV vaccination was lowest among transgender men (20%) compared with transgender women (60%) and gender nonbinary/nonconfirming and gender diverse individuals (60%), p<0.001. Our cohort was significantly less likely to receive Papanicolaou smears (51% vs. 81%, p<0.05) and contraception (48% vs. 65%, p<0.05) than cisgender individuals. Around 18% of transgender women had a documented pelvic examination in the past year. There was no significant difference in utilization rates based on insurance status. Conclusion: In our rural setting, there is lower utilization of gynecologic services among transgender and gender diverse individuals. Although participants in our study had high rates of access to insurance and health care providers, they still had lower rates of gynecologic screening and prevention services. To address these disparities, we advocate for developing transgender-specific gynecologic health maintenance guidelines, robust provider education, and an inclusive electronic medical record to ensure appropriate gynecologic health screening.

Vulvovaginal manifestations in Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis: Prevention and treatment

The prevalence of acute vulvovaginal involvement in toxic epidermal necrolysis can be as high as 70%; up to 28% of female patients will also develop chronic vulvovaginal sequelae. There is little consensus regarding prevention and treatment of the gynecologic sequelae of both Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN). We review acute and chronic sequelae, including erosions, scar formation, chronic skin changes, urethral complications, adenosis, malignant transformation, vulvodynia, and dyspareunia. We provide comprehensive recommendations for acute and long-term vulvovaginal care in adult and pediatric SJS/TEN patients. Treatment should include an ultrapotent topical steroid, followed by a nonirritating barrier cream applied to vulvar and perineal lesions. A steroid should be used intravaginally along with vaginal dilation in all adults (but should be avoided in prepubertal adolescents) with vaginal involvement. Menstrual suppression should be considered in all reproductive age patients until vulvovaginal lesions have healed. Last, referrals for pelvic floor physical therapy and to surgical subspecialties should be offered on a case-by-case basis. This guide summarizes the current available literature combined with expert opinion of both dermatologists and gynecologists who treat a high volume of SJS/TEN patients.

Group Medical Visits to Provide Gynecologic Care for Women Affected by Breast Cancer

Purpose

Women with breast cancer have complex and unique gynecologic needs that are challenging to effectively and comprehensively meet in a traditional gynecology visit format. Group medical visits are an effective and well-received model of care in other disease settings and can provide comprehensive health education as an adjunct to one-on-one evaluation and treatment. There are limited data regarding the use of this type of health care delivery in providing gynecology-focused care to women affected by breast cancer.

Methods

A group medical visit model was created for gynecology providers to see new breast cancer patient consults. From May 2012 to February 2014, 148 patients (3-6 per group) participated in a 1-hour informational session followed by a 15- to 30-minute individual visit with a physician that included history, physical examination and evaluation. We surveyed 101 women who attended these visits to evaluate a group model for providing gynecologic care and educational support to women with breast cancer.

Results

Of those who responded to the survey question, 100% agreed or somewhat agreed that their expectations for an initial intake visit were met during the group visit; 81% agreed or somewhat agreed that they felt a group visit was preferable to an individual introductory visit. More than 95% agreed or somewhat agreed that the information was understandable and their questions were answered during the visit. Only 5 respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the additional time commitment for this type of visit.

Conclusions

The majority of women surveyed expressed satisfaction with their experience with a group visit format. The women who participated preferred this format compared to an individual intake appointment when establishing gynecology care after breast cancer diagnosis/treatment, regardless of age, menopausal status, cancer stage or hormone receptor status. While further studies are warranted to directly compare and further assess satisfaction and efficacy, gynecologists may consider using a group model to provide comprehensive education and care to this patient population.