Introduction:In recent years there has been an explosion in the development of medical apps, with more than 40,000 apps now available. Nearly 100 apps allow women to track their fertility and menstrual cycles and can be used to avoid or achieve pregnancy. Apps offer a convenient way to track fertility biomarkers. However, only some use evidence-based fertility awareness-based methods (FABMs), which with ideal use have rates of effectiveness similar to those of commonly used forms of hormonal birth control. Since having a baby or preventing a pregnancy are important responsibilities, it is critical that women and couples have access to reliable, evidence-based apps that allow them to accurately track their fertility.Methods: We developed a tool to evaluate and rate fertility apps. This tool is specifically designed to help couples avoid pregnancy.Results: Results showed that the majority of fertility apps are not based on evidence-based FABMs or include a disclaimer discouraging use for avoiding pregnancy. However, at least 1 app in each FABM category (except symptohormonal methods) had a perfect score on accuracy.

No abstract

Background: Hormonal contraception (HC) is widely used throughout the world and has been associated with venous thrombosis (VT) such as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary emboli, and cerebral VT. Objectives: To provide a current comprehensive overview of the risk of objectively confirmed VT with HC in healthy women compared to nonusers. Search methods: PubMed was searched from inception to April 2018 for eligible studies in the English language, with hand searching from past systematic reviews. Selection criteria: We selected original research evaluating risk of objectively confirmed VT in healthy women taking oral or nonoral HC compared with nonusers. Data collection: The primary outcome of interest was a fatal or nonfatal VT in users of HC compared to nonusers or past users. Studies with at least twenty events were eligible. Adjusted relative risks with 95 percent confidence intervals were reported. Three independent reviewers extracted data from selected studies. Results: 1,962 publications were retrieved through the search strategy, with 15 publications included. Users of oral contraception with levonorgesterol had increased risk of VT by a range of 2.79-4.07, while other oral hormonal preparations increased risk by 4.0-48.6. Levonorgestrel intrauterine devices did not increase risk. Etonogestrel/ethinyl estradiol vaginal rings increased the risk of VT by 6.5. Norelgestromin/ethinyl estradiol patches increased risk of VT by 7.9. Etonogestrel subcutaneous implants by 1.4 and depot-medroxyprogesterone by 3.6. The risk of fatal VT was increased in women aged fifteen to twenty-four by 18.8-fold. Conclusion: Users of HC have a significant increased risk of VT compared to nonusers. Current risks would project at least 300-400 healthy young women dying yearly in the United States due to HC. Women should be informed of these risks and offered education in fertility-awareness-based methods with comparable efficacy for family planning. Summary: HC is widely used throughout the world and has been associated with blood clots in the legs and lungs. We searched the literature and found the risks of currently used forms of birth control increased between three-and ninefold for blood clots for healthy women. The risks found would project 300-400 women dying from using HC each year in the United States.

BackgroundFertility awareness-based methods (FABMs) educate about reproductive health and enable tracking and interpretation of physical signs, such as cervical fluid secretions and basal body temperature, which reflect the hormonal changes women experience on a cyclical basis during the years of ovarian activity. Some methods measure relevant hormone levels directly. Most FABMs allow women to identify ovulation and track this “vital sign” of the menstrual or female reproductive cycle, through daily observations recorded on cycle charts (paper or electronic).ApplicationsPhysicians can use the information from FABM charts to guide the diagnosis and management of medical conditions and to support or restore healthy function of the reproductive and endocrine systems, using a restorative reproductive medical (RRM) approach. FABMs can also be used by couples to achieve or avoid pregnancy and may be most effective when taught by a trained instructor.ChallengesInformation about individual FABMs is rarely provided in medical education. Outdated information is widespread both in training programs and in the public sphere. Obtaining accurate information about FABMs is further complicated by the numerous period tracking or fertility apps available, because very few of these apps have evidence to support their effectiveness for identifying the fertile window, for achieving or preventing pregnancy.ConclusionsThis article provides an overview of different types of FABMs with a published evidence base, apps and resources for learning and using FABMs, the role FABMs can play in medical evaluation and management, and the effectiveness of FABMs for family planning, both to achieve or to avoid pregnancy.

No abstract

Having a strong relationship with a personal physician can improve patient health outcomes. Yet, achieving and sustaining this type of patient-physician relationship is often not possible in the current American health care system. Pisacano scholars and alumni, a group of young physician leaders supported by the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM), gathered for a two-day symposium in June 2010 to explore the meaning of personal doctoring and its importance to our work as family physicians. Using the techniques of Appreciative Inquiry, the group discussed three questions: “What is it like to have a personal physician? What is it like to be a personal physician? What are some feasible next steps toward making this possible?” Symposium participants concluded that achieving the ideal patient-physician relationship for all patients and physicians would involve extensive alterations to the current health care system beyond what is outlined in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, in the context of current health reform efforts, individual physicians, researchers, and policy makers must not lose sight of the importance of the patient-physician relationship and should continue to take concrete steps on an individual and system level to move us closer to this ideal.

No abstract

Background:The structure of family practice residency programs remains essentially unchanged from the model first proposed more than 35 years ago. Advances in medical technology and knowledge combined with increasing restrictions on resident work hours and decreasing medical student interest invite reconsideration of how family physicians are trained.Methods: We resurveyed 442 third-year family practice residents who had participated in a prior study in 2000 to determine whether their opinions about the length and content of residency had changed and whether they would still choose to be a physician and a family physician.Results: Thirty-seven percent of responding third-year residents favored extending family practice residency to 4 years. Compared as groups, there was relatively little change in opinion between firstand third-year residents. However, residents' individual responses about the settings and content areas for which they would be willing to consider extending training varied considerably between years 1 and 3. Personal characteristics did not seem to influence residents' opinions about length and content of training. Reasons for favoring a 4-year program and barriers to change were similar to those reported previously. Residents' commitment to medicine and family medicine was still strong and was not associated with their opinions about length of training.Conclusion: Although most surveyed residents favored a 3-year residency program, a substantial minority still supported extending training to 4 years, and the majority would still choose to enter family medicine programs if they were extended. Given a lack of consensus about specific content areas, family medicine should consider a period of experimentation to determine how to best prepare future family physicians.