No abstract

Emergency contraception (EC) may help prevent pregnancy in various circumstances, such as contraceptive method failure, unprotected sexual intercourse, or sexual assault, yet it remains underused. There are 4 approved EC options in the United States. Although ulipristal acetate requires a provider's prescription, oral levonorgestrel (LNG) is available over the counter for women of all ages. The most effective method of EC is the copper intrauterine device, which can be left in place for up to 10 years for efficacious, cost-effective, hormone-free, and convenient long-term primary contraception. Ulipristal acetate tends to be more efficacious in pregnancy prevention than is LNG, especially when taken later than 72 hours postcoitus. The mechanism of action of oral EC is delay of ovulation, and current evidence reveals that it is ineffective postovulation. Women who weigh more than 75 kg or have a body mass index greater than 25 kg/m(2) may have a higher risk of unintended pregnancy when using oral LNG EC; therefore, ulipristal acetate or copper intrauterine devices are preferable in this setting. Providers are often unaware of the range of EC options or are unsure of how to counsel patients regarding the access and use of EC. This article critically reviews current EC literature, summarizes recommendations, and provides guidance for counseling women about EC. Useful tips for health care providers are provided, with a focus on special populations, including breast-feeding women and those transitioning to long-term contraception after EC use. When treating women of reproductive age, clinicians should be prepared to counsel them about EC options, provide EC appropriately, and, if needed, refer for EC in a timely manner.

BackgroundAddressing healthcare disparities is a national priority for initiatives in precision and individualized medicine. An essential component of precision medicine is the understanding that sex and gender influence health and disease. Whether these issues are addressed in post-graduate medical education curricula is unknown.MethodsA questionnaire was designed and administered to residents across the Mayo Clinic enterprise to assess current knowledge of sex and gender medicine in a large program of post-graduate medical education and to identify barriers and preferred teaching methods for addressing sex and gender issues in health and disease. Descriptive and qualitative thematic analyses of the survey responses were compiled and analyzed.ResultsResponses were collected from 271 residents (response rate 17.2 %; 54 % female; 46 % male). A broad cross-section of training programs on all Mayo Clinic campuses (Arizona, Minnesota, and Florida) was represented. Sixteen percent of the respondents reported they had never had an instructor or preceptor discuss how a patient’s sex or gender impacted their care of a patient; 55 % said this happened only occasionally. Of medical knowledge questions about established sex- and gender-related differences, 48 % were answered incorrectly or “unsure.” Qualitative thematic analysis showed that many trainees do not understand the potential impact of sex and gender on their clinical practice and/or believe it does not pertain to their specialty. A higher percentage of female participants agreed it was important to consider a patient’s sex and gender when providing patient care (60.4 vs. 38.7 %, p =  0.02), and more male than female participants had participated in research that included sex and/or gender as a variable (59.6 vs. 39.0 %, p < 0.01).ConclusionsCurriculum gaps exist in post-graduate medical training regarding sex- and gender-based medicine, and residents often do not fully understand how these concepts impact their patients’ care. Reviewing the definition of sex- and gender-based medicine and integrating these concepts into existing curricula can help close these knowledge gaps. As the practice of medicine becomes more individualized, it is essential to equip physicians with an understanding of how a patient’s sex and gender impacts their health to provide the highest value care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13293-016-0097-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Objectives The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a reproductive life plan (RLP) to promote individual responsibility for preconception health. The objectives of this study were to determine existing awareness of RLPs in a cohort of reproductive-age adults and to evaluate their knowledge level and beliefs about reproductive life planning. Methods We performed a cross-sectional survey study of adults ages 18-40 years old seeking care at the student health center of a large public university. Participation was voluntary. Survey responses were analyzed by age and gender. Results A total of 559 surveys were collected and analyzed. Only 24 % of participants had heard of an RLP although a majority (62.9 %) agreed that it is important to develop an RLP. Most respondents (85.4 %) preferred to receive information about reproductive life planning from a primary care provider or obstetrician-gynecologist, while only 4.2 % of patients surveyed reported ever being actually asked about an RLP by their healthcare provider. Among those who agreed that an RLP was important, knowledge of specific aspects of an RLP was lacking. Conclusions In our cohort of reproductive-age adults, general health literacy regarding RLPs was poor. Most of the young adults who responded to our survey did not know what an RLP was and even fewer had ever discussed one with their health provider.