Abstract
Objectives
Study design
Results
Conclusions
Implications statement
Keywords
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to ContraceptionReferences
U.S Preventive Services Task Force. June 2017; 2018. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/.
- The end of the 15–20 minute primary care visit.J Gen Intern Med. 2015; 30: 1584-1586
- One key question(R): first things first in reproductive health.Matern Child Health J. 2017; 21: 387-392
- ONE KEY QUESTION(R): preventive reproductive health is part of high quality primary care.Contraception. 2013; 88: 3-6
- National recommendations for preconception care: the essential role of the family physician.J Am Board Fam Med. 2007; 20: 81-84
Johnson K, Posner, Samuel, Biermann J, Cordero JF. Recommendations to Improve Preconception Health and Health Care – United States. A Report of the CDC/ATSDR Preconception Care Work Group and the Select Panel on Preconception Care. Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report April 21, 2006;55:1-23.
Curtis KM, Jatlaoui TC, Tepper NK, et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2016. Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report July 29, 2016;65:1-66.
Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Family Medicine. June 10, 2018; September 18, 2018: https://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/120FamilyMedicine2018.pdf?ver=2018-06-15-112624-307.
- Program directors' perceptions of resident education in women's health: a national survey.J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2017; 26: 133-140
- The need to enhance women's health training opportunities in internal medicine residency programs.J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2017; 26: 97-98
- Primary care internal medicine training and women's health.J Gen Intern Med. 1997; 12: 129-131
Jones H, Calixte C, Manze M, et al. Primary care patients' preferences for reproductive health service needs assessment and service availability in New York Federally Qualified Health Centers. Contraception, in press.
- Physician response to surveys. A review of the literature.Am J Prev Med. 2001; 20: 61-67
Romero D, Manze M, Roberts L, McGroarty A, Jones H. Stakeholder Perspectives on Reproductive Health in Primary Care, LARC Provision and Reproductive Justice: A Qualitative Study. under review.
- Feasibility study of family planning services screening as clinical decision support at an urban Federally Qualified Health Center network.Contraception. 2019; 99: 27-31
- Contraceptive prescription: physician beliefs, attitudes and socio-demographic characteristics.Can J Public Health. 1991; 82: 259-263
- Explaining variation in physician practice patterns and their propensities to recommend services.Med Care Res Rev. 2005; 62: 339-357
- Physician gender, patient gender, and primary care.J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2003; 12: 73-80
- Why do patients of female physicians have higher rates of breast and cervical cancer screening?.J Gen Intern Med. 1997; 12: 34-43
- Disparities and change over time in distance women would need to travel to have an abortion in the USA: a spatial analysis.Lancet Public Health. 2017; 2: e493-e500
- Geographic variation of reproductive health indicators and outcomes in the United States: place matters.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 211: 278-284
- Pregnancy options counseling and abortion referrals among us primary care physicians: results from a national survey.Fam Med. 2017; 49: 527-536
Guttmacher Institute. Federally Qualified Health Centers: Vital Sources of Care, No Substitute for the Family Planning Safety Net. May 17, 2017;September 18, 2018: https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2017/05/federally-qualified-health-centers-vital-sources-care-no-substitute-family-planning.
- A systematic review of the effect of reproductive intention screening in primary care settings on reproductive health outcomes.Fam Pract. 2017; 35: 122-131
- Rethinking the pregnancy planning paradigm: unintended conceptions or unrepresentative concepts?.Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2016; 48: 147-151
- A reminder that human behavior frequently refuses to conform to models created by researchers.Fam Plann Perspect. 1999; 31: 248-249
- Pregnancy intentions may not be a useful measure for research on maternal and child health outcomes.Fam Plann Perspect. 1999; 31: 249-250
- A blessing I can't afford: factors underlying the paradox of happiness about unintended pregnancy.Soc Sci Med. 2015; 132: 149-155
- What is a 'planned' pregnancy? Empirical data from a British study.Soc Sci Med. 2002; 55: 545-557
- A qualitative assessment of perspectives on getting pregnant: the Social Position and Family Formation study.Reproductive Health. 2019; 16: 1
- “It just happens”: a qualitative study exploring low-income women's perspectives on pregnancy intention and planning.Contraception. 2015; 91: 150-156
- Determinants of intrauterine contraception provision among US family physicians: a national survey of knowledge, attitudes and practice.Contraception. 2011; 83: 472-478
- Provision of abortion and other reproductive health services among former Midwest Access Project trainees.Contraception. 2018; 97: 341-345
- The Effects of Abortion Training on Family Medicine Residents' Clinical Experience.Fam Med. 2017; 49: 22-27
RHEDI: Mainstreaming Abortion in Family Medicine. 2018;September 18, 2018: www.rhedi.org.
Reproductive Health Access Project. Reproductive Health Access Network: Training and Support; September 18, 2018: https://www.reproductiveaccess.org/training-support/network/.
Article info
Publication history
Footnotes
☆Declaration of Competing Interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
☆☆Funding: This research was funded by the Society for Family Planning Research Fund (#SFPRF10-II2-5).The funding source was not involved in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of SFPRF. Author support [CC] came from the Empire Clinical Research Investigator Program.
