Vaginally-inserted HIV prevention methods have been reported to impact the sexual experience for women and their partners, and hence impacts acceptability of and adherence to the method. We analyzed in-depth interviews and focus group discussions about participants’ sexual experiences while wearing the ring, collected during the MTN-020/ASPIRE phase 3 safety and effectiveness trial of a dapivirine vaginal ring for HIV prevention in Malawi, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Most women reported that partners did not feel the ring during sex, however, women felt they had to manage their partners’ interaction with or reaction to the ring. In maintaining positive relationships, women were concerned about partners’ discovering ring use and about ensuring that partners had a good sexual experience with them. Finally women were concerned about how they themselves experienced sex with the ring. Some found that the ring made the vaginal environment more desirable for their partners and themselves.
Studies demonstrate that dental providers value effective provider-patient communication but use few recommended communication techniques. This study explored perspectives of California dental providers and oral health literacy experts in the United States on use of communication techniques. We conducted a qualitative key informant interview study with 50 participants between November 2019 and March 2020, including 44 dental providers (dentists, hygienists, and assistants) in public or private practice in California and 6 oral health literacy (OHL) experts. We undertook thematic analysis of interview transcripts and descriptive statistics about interviewees from pre-surveys. Dental providers reported frequently speaking slowly, and using simple language and models/radiographs to communicate with patients, while infrequently using interpretation/translation, illustrations, teach-back, or motivational interviewing. Providers reported using only 6 of the 18 American Medical Association’s (AMA) recommended communication techniques and only 3 of the 7 AMA’s basic communication techniques. A majority of providers indicated using one of five oral health assessment and educational strategies. Key barriers to effective communication included limited time, financial incentives promoting treatment over prevention, lack of OHL training, limited plain-language patient education materials, and patients with low OHL knowledge. Dental organizations should prioritize supporting dental providers in effective patient communication practices. Standardizing OHL continuing education, creating an evidence-based OHL toolkit for dental teams, ensuring accessible interpretation/translation services, and incentivizing dental providers to deliver education could improve oral health literacy and outcomes.
IMPORTANCEMany people face barriers to abortion care, including long distances to an abortion facility. OBJECTIVES To investigate the association of distance to the nearest abortion facility with abortion or pregnancy outcome. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study was conducted using data from the Google Ads Abortion Access study, a prospective cohort study of individuals considering abortion recruited between August 2017 and May 2018. Individuals from 50 states and Washington, District of Columbia, who were pregnant and considering abortion based on self-report were recruited online using a stratified sampling technique. Participants completed online baseline and 4-week follow-up surveys. Data were analyzed between May and August 2021. EXPOSURES Driving distance to an abortion facility calculated from participant zip code and grouped into 4 categories (<5 miles, 5-24 miles, 25-49 miles, and Ն50 miles). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Abortion or pregnancy outcome reported at 4-week follow-up, categorized as had an abortion, still seeking an abortion, or planning to continue pregnancy. Other measures included reported experience of 8 distance-related barriers to abortion, such as having to gather money for travel expenses and having to keep the abortion a secret. RESULTS Among 1485 pregnant individuals considering abortion who completed the baseline survey and provided contact information, 1005 individuals completed follow-up (follow-up rate, 67.7%) and 856 participants were included in the analytic sample (443 individuals ages 25-34 years [51.8%]; 208 Black individuals [24.3%]; 101 Hispanic or Latinx individuals [11.8%], and 468 White individuals [54.8%]). Most participants had at least some college education (474 individuals [55.5%]). Distance to an abortion facility was less than 5 miles for 233 individuals (27.2%), 5 to 24 miles for 373 individuals (43.6%), 25 to 49 miles for 85 individuals (9.9%), and 50 or more miles for 165 individuals (19.3%) (mean [SD] distance = 28.3 [43.8] miles). Most participants reported at least 1 distance-related barrier (763 individuals [89.1%]), with a mean of 3.3 barriers (95% CI, 3.2-3.5 barriers) reported. For 7 of 8 distance-related barriers, an increased percentage of participants living farther from an abortion facility reported the barrier compared with participants living less than 5 miles from a facility; for example, 61.8% (95% CI, 53.5%-69.4%) of individuals living less than 5 miles reported having to gather money for travel expenses, while 81.2% (95% CI, 70.8%-88.5%; P = .002) of those living 25 to 49 miles and 75.8% (95% CI, 69.9%-81.0%; P = .02) of those living 50 or more miles from a facility reported this barrier. At follow-up, participants living 50 or more miles from a facility had higher odds of still being pregnant and seeking abortion (adjusted odds ratio[aOR] = 2.07; 95% CI, 1.35-3.17; P = .001) or planning to continue pregnancy (aOR = 1.96; 95% CI, 1.06-3.63; P = .03) compared with participants living within 5 miles.
Background In the United States, the internet is widely used to seek health information. Despite an estimated 18 million Google searches on abortion per year and the demonstrated importance of the abortion pill as an option for pregnancy termination, the top webpage search results for abortion pill searches, as well as the content and quality of those webpages, are not well understood. Methods We used Google’s Custom Search Application Programming Interface (API) to identify the top 10 webpages presented for “abortion pill” searches on August 06, 2018. We developed a comprehensive, evidence-based Family Planning Webpage Quality Assessment Tool (FPWQAT), which was used to assess webpage quality for the five top webpages presenting text-based educational content. Results Of the top webpages for “abortion pill” searches, a plannedparenthood.com page was the top result and scored highest on our assessment (81%), providing high-quality and useable information. The other four webpages, a Wikipedia.com page and three anti-abortion information webpages, scored much lower on our assessment (14%-43%). These four webpages had lower quality of information in less useable formats. The anti-abortion pages also presented a variety of disinformation about the abortion pill. Conclusions Both the lack of accurate clinical content on the majority of top webpages and the concerning disinformation they contained raise concerns about the quality of online abortion pill information, while underlining challenges posed by Google search results to informed choice for consumers. Healthcare providers and consumers must be informed of online abortion pill content that is not based in current clinical evidence, while advocates and policymakers should push for online information that is credible and useable. These changes are imperative given the importance of sound abortion pill information for reproductive decision-making at a time when in-person abortion services are further challenged in the US.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.