The 2016 U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (U.S. MEC) comprises recommendations for the use of specific contraceptive methods by women and men who have certain characteristics or medical conditions. These recommendations for health care providers were updated by CDC after review of the scientific evidence and consultation with national experts who met in Atlanta, Georgia, during August 26-28, 2015. The information in this report updates the 2010 U.S. MEC (CDC. U.S. medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2010. MMWR 2010:59 [No. RR-4]). Notable updates include the addition of recommendations for women with cystic fibrosis, women with multiple sclerosis, and women receiving certain psychotropic drugs or St. John's wort; revisions to the recommendations for emergency contraception, including the addition of ulipristal acetate; and revisions to the recommendations for postpartum women; women who are breastfeeding; women with known dyslipidemias, migraine headaches, superficial venous disease, gestational trophoblastic disease, sexually transmitted diseases, and human immunodeficiency virus; and women who are receiving antiretroviral therapy. The recommendations in this report are intended to assist health care providers when they counsel women, men, and couples about contraceptive method choice. Although these recommendations are meant to serve as a source of clinical guidance, health care providers should always consider the individual clinical circumstances of each person seeking family planning services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice for individual patients. Persons should seek advice from their health care providers when considering family planning options.

No abstract

Problem/Condition CDC conducts abortion surveillance to document the number and characteristics of women obtaining legal induced abortions and number of abortion-related deaths in the United States. Period Covered 2019. Description of System Each year, CDC requests abortion data from the central health agencies for 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City. For 2019, 49 reporting areas voluntarily provided aggregate abortion data to CDC. Of these, 48 reporting areas provided data each year during 2010–2019. Census and natality data were used to calculate abortion rates (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratios (number of abortions per 1,000 live births), respectively. Abortion-related deaths from 2018 were assessed as part of CDC’s Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System (PMSS). Results A total of 629,898 abortions for 2019 were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. Among 48 reporting areas with data each year during 2010–2019, in 2019, a total of 625,346 abortions were reported, the abortion rate was 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 195 abortions per 1,000 live births. From 2018 to 2019, the total number of abortions increased 2% (from 614,820 total abortions), the abortion rate increased 0.9% (from 11.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years), and the abortion ratio increased 3% (from 189 abortions per 1,000 live births). From 2010 to 2019, the total number of reported abortions, abortion rate, and abortion ratio decreased 18% (from 762,755), 21% (from 14.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years), and 13% (from 225 abortions per 1,000 live births), respectively. In 2019, women in their 20s accounted for more than half of abortions (56.9%). Women aged 20–24 and 25–29 years accounted for the highest percentages of abortions (27.6% and 29.3%, respectively) and had the highest abortion rates (19.0 and 18.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 20–24 and 25–29 years, respectively). By contrast, adolescents aged <15 years and women aged ≥40 years accounted for the lowest percentages of abortions (0.2% and 3.7%, respectively) and had the lowest abortion rates (0.4 and 2.7 abortions per 1,000 women aged <15 and ≥40 years, respectively). However, abortion ratios in 2019 were highest among adolescents (aged ≤19 years) and lowest among women aged 25–39 years. Abortion rates decreased from 2010 to 2019 for all women, regardless of age. The decrease in abortion rate was highest among adolescents compared with any other age group. From 2018 to 2019, abortion rates decreased or did not change among women aged ≤24 years; however, the abortion rate increased among those aged ≥25 years. Abortion ratios also decreased or did not change from 2010 to 2019 for all age groups, except adolescents aged <15 years. The decrease in abortion ratio was highest among women aged ≥40 years compared with any other age group. From 2018 to 2019, ab...

IMPORTANCE Armed conflict in the 21st century poses new challenges to a humanitarian surgical response, including changing security requirements, access to patients, and communities in need, limited deployable surgical assets, resource constraints, and the requirement to address both traumatic injuries as well as emergency surgical needs of the population. At the same time, recent improvements in trauma care and systems have reduced injury-related mortality. This combination of new challenges and medical capabilities warrants reconsideration of long-standing humanitarian surgery protocols. OBJECTIVE To describe a consensus framework for surgical care designed to respond to this emerging need. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS An international group of 35 representatives from humanitarian agencies, US military, and academic trauma programs was invited to the Stanford Humanitarian Surgical Response in Conflict Working Group to engage in a structured process to review extant trauma protocols and make recommendations for revision. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The working group's method adapted core elements of a modified Delphi process combined with consensus development conference from August 3 to August 5, 2018. RESULTS Lessons from civilian and military trauma systems as well as recent battlefield experiences in humanitarian settings were integrated into a tiered continuum of response from point of injury through rehabilitation. The framework addresses the security and medical requirements as well as ethical and legal principles that guide humanitarian action. The consensus framework includes trained, lay first responders; far-forward resuscitation/stabilization centers; rapid damage control surgical access; and definitive care facilities. The system also includes nontrauma surgical care, injury prevention, quality improvement, data collection, and predeployment training requirements. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Evidence suggests that modern trauma systems save lives. However, the requirements of providing this standard of care in insecure conflict settings places new burdens on humanitarian systems that must provide both emergency and trauma surgical care. This consensus framework integrates advances in trauma care and surgical systems in response to a changing security environment. It is possible to reduce disparities and improve the standard of care in these settings.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Clinical practice guidelines recommend women avoid pregnancy immediately after bariatric surgery, highlighting the need for effective contraception. However, women with a history of malabsorptive bariatric procedures should generally not use oral contraceptives, as these procedures may decrease contraceptive effectiveness. Objectives: To identify provider characteristics associated with knowledge of COC effectiveness. Setting: United States Methods: We analyzed weighted survey data collected from national samples of public-sector health centers and office-based physicians who regularly provide family planning services (n=2,060). We asked providers about the effectiveness of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) for women with a history of malabsorptive procedures compared with healthy women (more/equally effective, less effective, do not know). We used multinomial logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals to identify characteristics associated with COC effectiveness knowledge. Results: Approximately 55% of providers correctly answered that COCs are less effective for women with malabsorptive procedures; 25% considered COCs more/equally effective, and 20% were uncertain. Among public-sector providers, the adjusted odds of uncertainty was significantly higher for those whose clinical focus was not reproductive health, for nurses versus advanced practice clinicians, and for those without Title X funding. For office-based physicians, adolescent medicine providers had higher odds of uncertainty versus obstetrician-gynecologists. Physicians practicing in settings other than private clinics (such as community health centers) had higher odds of considering COCs effective compared with those practicing in hospital or university clinics. Conclusions: Substantial proportions of surveyed providers have inadequate COC effectiveness knowledge for women with a history of malabsorptive procedures.