Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T02:59:20.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 7 - Impact of Integrated Family Planning Training

Culture Change and Access to Care

from Section I - Abortion Training: Workforce, Leadership, Social & Political Impact

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2021

By
Courtney Schreiber ,
Philip D. Darney  and
Uta Landy
Edited by
Uta Landy ,
Philip D Darney  and
Jody Steinauer
Uta Landy
Affiliation:
University of California, San Francisco
Philip D Darney
Affiliation:
University of California, San Francisco
Jody Steinauer
Affiliation:
University of California, San Francisco
Get access

Summary

The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) became the first site for the Fellowship in Family Planning when Dr. Philip Darney enrolled Dr. Dilys Walker as a fellow in 1991. UCSF subsequently became home to two national programs: the national Family Planning Fellowship, founded to develop physician-leaders in reproductive health, and, soon after, in 1999, The Ryan Residency Programs, conceived by Dr. Uta Landy, a nation-wide initiative to integrate and enhance family planning training for obstetrics and gynecology residents. Now with 30 fellowship sites at leading US medical schools and over 100 Ryan Residency Programs, faculty, fellows, and residents provide family planning care and training, and conduct a broad range of family planning research. These two programs have led to improved clinical care, teaching, education, research and culture change in academic medicine and the field of family planning in the US and around the world.

Keywords

Fellowship in Family PlanningRyan Programsob/gyn trainingUCSFFamily Planning Research
Type
Chapter
Information
Advancing Women's Health Through Medical Education
A Systems Approach in Family Planning and Abortion
 , pp. 83 - 93
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 612: abortion training and education. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124(5):1055–1059. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000456327.96480.18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinauer, JE, Turk, JK, Pomerantz, T, Simonson, K, Learman, LA, Landy, U. Abortion training in US obstetrics and gynecology residency programs. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(1):86.e1–86.e6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2018.04.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinauer, JE, Turk, JK, Fulton, MC, Simonson, KH, Landy, U. The benefits of family planning training: a 10-year review of the Ryan Residency Training Program. Contraception. 2013;88(2):275–280. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2013.02.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fellowship in Family Planning National Office, 2019 Program Data.Google Scholar
Miller, RA. Evaluation of the Family Planning Fellowship. Oakland: Public Health Institute; 2006:89.Google Scholar
Renner, R-M, Nichols, MD, Jensen, JT, Li, H, Edelman, AB. Paracervical block for pain control in first-trimester surgical abortion: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(5):1030–1037. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318250b13eCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schreiber, CA, Creinin, MD, Atrio, J, Sonalkar, S, Ratcliffe, SJ, Barnhart, KT. Mifepristone pretreatment for the medical management of early pregnancy loss. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(23):2161–2170. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1715726Google Scholar
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Health and Medicine Division, Board on Health Care Services, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice, Committee on Reproductive Health Services: Assessing the Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the U.S. The Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press 2018. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507236/. Accessed March 30, 2020.Google Scholar
Secura, GM, Madden, T, McNicholas, C, et al. Provision of no-cost, long-acting contraception and teenage pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(14):1316–1323. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1400506CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Academy of Pediatrics. AAP Updates Recommendations on Teen Pregnancy Prevention. http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/AAP-Updates-Recommendations-on-Teen-Pregnancy-Prevention.aspx. Accessed April 7, 2020.Google Scholar
ACOG Committee Opinion No. 735: adolescents and long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(5):e130–e139. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonson, K, Pomerantz, T, Mullersman, K, Ly, E, Landy, U. Improving evidence-based practice for LARC: evaluation of the Ryan LARC program. Oral presentation at the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics meeting; 2015.Google Scholar
Kenneth, J. Ryan Residency Training Program in Family Planning and Abortion National Office, 2019 Program Data.Google Scholar
Welcome to Family Planning Fellowship | Family Planning Fellowship. www.familyplanningfellowship.org/. Accessed April 6, 2020.Google Scholar
Colorado’s success with long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). Department of Public Health and Environment; January 6, 2017. www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/cfpi-report. Accessed April 6, 2020.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, MI, Chang, R, Thiel de Bocanegra, H. The impact of postpartum contraception on reducing preterm birth: findings from California. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(5):703.e1–6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.07.033CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, RH, Cwiak, C, eds. Contraception for the Medically Challenging Patient. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiel de Bocanegra, H, Chang, R, Menz, M, Howell, M, Darney, P. Postpartum contraception in publicly-funded programs and interpregnancy intervals. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(2 Pt 1):296–303. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182991db6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thiel de Bocanegra, H, Chang, R, Howell, M, Darney, P. Interpregnancy intervals: impact of postpartum contraceptive effectiveness and coverage. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(4):311.e1–311.e8. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2013.12.020Google Scholar
Rodriguez, MI, Jensen, JT, Darney, PD, Little, SE, Caughey, AB. The financial effects of expanding postpartum contraception for new immigrants. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(3):552–558. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181d06f96Google Scholar
Darney, PD, Stuart, GS, Thomas, MA, Cwiak, C, Olariu, A, Creinin, MD. Amenorrhea rates and predictors during 1 year of levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine system use. Contraception. 2018;97(3):210–214. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2017.10.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Archer, DF, Merkatz, RB, Bahamondes, L, et al. Efficacy of the 1-year (13-cycle) segesterone acetate and ethinylestradiol contraceptive vaginal system: results of two multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 3 trials. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(8):e1054–e1064. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30265-7Google Scholar
Contraceptive Clinical Trials Network (CCTN). www.nichd.nih.gov/research/supported/cctn.. Accessed April 6, 2020.Google Scholar
Clinical Practice Handbook for Safe Abortion. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK190095/. Accessed April 6, 2020.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). U S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Recomm Rep. 2010;59(RR-4):1–86.Google Scholar
Curtis, KM, Jatlaoui, TC, Tepper, NK, et al. U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2016;65(4):1–66. doi:10.15585/mmwr.rr6504a1Google Scholar
Tang, J, Kapp, N, Dragoman, M, de Souza, JP. WHO recommendations for misoprostol use for obstetric and gynecologic indications. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013;121(2):186–189. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2012.12.009Google Scholar
Lavelanet, AF, Schlitt, S, Johnson, BR, Ganatra, B. Global Abortion Policies Database: a descriptive analysis of the legal categories of lawful abortion. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2018;18(1):44. doi:10.1186/s12914-018-0183-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Medical Management of Abortion. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK536779/. Accessed April 6, 2020.Google Scholar
Hannaford, PC, Ti, A, Chipato, T, Curtis, KM. Copper intrauterine device use and HIV acquisition in women: a systematic review. BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2020;46(1):17–5. doi:10.1136/bmjsrh-2019-200512CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jatlaoui, TC, Eckhaus, L, Mandel, MG, et al. Abortion surveillance – United States, 2016. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2019;68(11):1–41. doi:10.15585/mmwr.ss6811a1Google Scholar
Lathrop, E, Romero, L, Hurst, S, et al. The Zika Contraception Access Network: a feasibility programme to increase access to contraception in Puerto Rico during the 2016–17 Zika virus outbreak. Lancet Public Health. 2018;3(2):e91–e99. doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(18)30001-XGoogle Scholar
Li, R, Simmons, KB, Bertolli, J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of increasing access to contraception during the Zika virus outbreak, Puerto Rico, 2016. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017;23(1):74–82. doi:10.3201/eid2301.161322Google Scholar
Curtis, KM, Tepper, NK, Jatlaoui, TC, et al. U.S. medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2016;65(3):1–103. doi:10.15585/mmwr.rr6503a1Google ScholarPubMed
Gavin, L, Moskosky, S, Carter, M, et al. Providing quality family planning services: recommendations of CDC and the U.S. Office of Population Affairs. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2014;63(RR-04):1–54.Google ScholarPubMed
The Center for Biomedical Research | Population Council. www.popcouncil.org/cbr. Accessed April 6, 2020.Google Scholar
Charlotte Ellertson Social Science Postdoctoral Fellowship in Abortion and Reproductive Health. Ibis Reproductive Health; May 1, 2011. www.ibisreproductivehealth.org/projects/charlotte-ellertson-social-science-postdoctoral-fellowship-abortion-and-reproductive-health. Accessed April 6, 2020.Google Scholar
Guttmacher Institute. State Facts about Abortion: Massachusetts; January 26, 2016. www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-massachusetts. Accessed April 6, 2020.Google Scholar
Lang, B, Sammel, M, Meisel, Z, Schreiber, C. Most patients with bleeding and cramping in early pregnancy can be safely triaged to the ambulatory setting. Contraception. 2019;100:325. doi:0.1016/j.contraception.2019.07.070Google Scholar
Shorter, JM, Atrio, JM, Schreiber, CA. Management of early pregnancy loss, with a focus on patient centered care. Semin Perinatol. 2019;43(2):84–94. doi:10.1053/j.semperi.2018.12.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, CA, Roe, AH, McAllister, A, Meisel, ZF, Koelper, N, Schreiber, CA. Patient experiences with miscarriage management in the emergency and ambulatory settings. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134(6):1285–1292. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000003571Google Scholar
ACOG Congressional Leadership Conference (CLC). www.acog.org/en/Education. Accessed April 6, 2020.Google Scholar
Lathrop, v. Deal, 801 S.E.2d 867 (Ga 2017).Google Scholar
Weitz, TA, Taylor, D, Desai, S, et al. Safety of aspiration abortion performed by nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants under a California legal waiver. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(3):454–461. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.301159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, W. Life’s Work: A Moral Argument for Choice. New York: 37 Ink; 2017.Google Scholar
Gordon, M, McCammon, S. A drug that eases miscarriages is difficult for women to get. NPR; January 10, 2019. www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/01/10/666957368/a-drug-that-eases-miscarriages-is-difficult-for-women-to-getGoogle Scholar
Harris, LH. My day as an abortion care provider. New York Times; October 24, 2019:23.Google Scholar
Hardy-Fairbanks, A. Mother and abortion provider – I can be both. Newsweek; May 11, 2019. www.newsweek.com/abortion-provider-mother-opinion-1409871Google Scholar
Abortion Onscreen. Abortion Onscreen in 2019. San Francisco: Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health; 2019:19. www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/Abortion%20Onscreen%20Report%202019.pdf. Accessed April 7, 2020.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×