Pathways to IUD and implant insertion in general practice: a secondary analysis of the ACCORd study.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Australian journal of primary health Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1071/PY22265
Danielle Mazza, Cathy J Watson, Angela Taft, Jayne Lucke, Kevin McGeechan, Marion Haas, Kathleen McNamee, Jeffrey F Peipert, Kirsten I Black
{"title":"Pathways to IUD and implant insertion in general practice: a secondary analysis of the ACCORd study.","authors":"Danielle Mazza,&nbsp;Cathy J Watson,&nbsp;Angela Taft,&nbsp;Jayne Lucke,&nbsp;Kevin McGeechan,&nbsp;Marion Haas,&nbsp;Kathleen McNamee,&nbsp;Jeffrey F Peipert,&nbsp;Kirsten I Black","doi":"10.1071/PY22265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite recommendations, long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) are not always offered as first-line contraceptives in general practice. This study aimed to describe pathways used by women for insertion of LARC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a secondary analysis of data from the Australian Contraceptives ChOice pRoject (ACCORd), a cluster randomised controlled trial set in 57 general practices in Melbourne, Australia. We investigated whether an educational intervention for general practitioners (GPs) and a rapid LARC insertion clinic increased LARC uptake. The main outcome measures were the type of health service, location/provider of intrauterine device (IUD) insertion; time to insertion; and distance travelled for IUD insertion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During ACCORd, 149 women had LARC insertion. IUD training was reported by 37% of GPs, but only 12% inserted them. In contrast, 70% of GPs inserted implants and 95% of women accessed implant insertion through their own general practice. LARC rapid referral clinics were used by 52% (13/25) of intervention GPs, where 71% (41/56) of IUD insertions occurred in these clinics (but no implants). There was no difference in the mean time from referral to IUD insertion between women attending intervention and control GPs (mean days 37.6vs 32.7; P =0.61). GPs (including IUD inserters) used a variety of referral pathways for IUD insertion, including public and private clinics, and other GPs. Women travelled up to 90km for IUD insertion.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although implant insertion has been integrated into general practice, few GPs insert IUDs. Where the option exists for GPs to refer to a LARC rapid referral clinic, the majority of IUD insertions will take place there. Establishing a network of such clinics Australia wide may both increase IUD uptake and address the extensive need for GP training in IUD insertion.</p>","PeriodicalId":8651,"journal":{"name":"Australian journal of primary health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian journal of primary health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/PY22265","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Despite recommendations, long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) are not always offered as first-line contraceptives in general practice. This study aimed to describe pathways used by women for insertion of LARC.

Methods: This is a secondary analysis of data from the Australian Contraceptives ChOice pRoject (ACCORd), a cluster randomised controlled trial set in 57 general practices in Melbourne, Australia. We investigated whether an educational intervention for general practitioners (GPs) and a rapid LARC insertion clinic increased LARC uptake. The main outcome measures were the type of health service, location/provider of intrauterine device (IUD) insertion; time to insertion; and distance travelled for IUD insertion.

Results: During ACCORd, 149 women had LARC insertion. IUD training was reported by 37% of GPs, but only 12% inserted them. In contrast, 70% of GPs inserted implants and 95% of women accessed implant insertion through their own general practice. LARC rapid referral clinics were used by 52% (13/25) of intervention GPs, where 71% (41/56) of IUD insertions occurred in these clinics (but no implants). There was no difference in the mean time from referral to IUD insertion between women attending intervention and control GPs (mean days 37.6vs 32.7; P =0.61). GPs (including IUD inserters) used a variety of referral pathways for IUD insertion, including public and private clinics, and other GPs. Women travelled up to 90km for IUD insertion.

Conclusions: Although implant insertion has been integrated into general practice, few GPs insert IUDs. Where the option exists for GPs to refer to a LARC rapid referral clinic, the majority of IUD insertions will take place there. Establishing a network of such clinics Australia wide may both increase IUD uptake and address the extensive need for GP training in IUD insertion.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一般情况下宫内节育器和植入物置入的途径:ACCORd研究的二次分析。
背景:尽管建议,长效可逆避孕药(LARC)并不总是提供作为一线避孕药在一般做法。本研究旨在描述女性使用LARC插入的途径。方法:这是对澳大利亚避孕药具选择项目(ACCORd)数据的二次分析,该项目是澳大利亚墨尔本57家全科诊所的随机对照试验。我们调查了全科医生(gp)的教育干预和快速LARC插入诊所是否增加了LARC的吸收。主要结局指标为卫生服务类型、放置宫内节育器的地点/提供者;插入时间;以及放置宫内节育器的距离。结果:在ACCORd期间,149名妇女进行了LARC置入。37%的全科医生接受过宫内节育器培训,但只有12%的人植入了宫内节育器。相比之下,70%的全科医生植入了植入物,95%的女性通过自己的全科医生植入了植入物。52%(13/25)的干预全科医生使用LARC快速转诊诊所,其中71%(41/56)的宫内节育器植入发生在这些诊所(但没有植入)。参加干预和对照组全科医生的妇女从转诊到插入宫内节育器的平均时间没有差异(平均天数37.6vs 32.7;P = 0.61)。全科医生(包括宫内节育器插入者)使用各种转诊途径进行宫内节育器插入,包括公立和私立诊所,以及其他全科医生。为了插入宫内节育器,妇女们跋涉了90公里。结论:虽然植入物插入已纳入一般实践,但很少有全科医生植入宫内节育器。如果全科医生可以选择转到LARC快速转诊诊所,大多数宫内节育器插入将在那里进行。在澳大利亚范围内建立这样的诊所网络,既可以增加宫内节育器的吸收,也可以解决对全科医生进行宫内节育器插入培训的广泛需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Australian journal of primary health
Australian journal of primary health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
15.40%
发文量
136
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australian Journal of Primary Health integrates the theory and practise of community health services and primary health care. The journal publishes high-quality, peer-reviewed research, reviews, policy reports and analyses from around the world. Articles cover a range of issues influencing community health services and primary health care, particularly comprehensive primary health care research, evidence-based practice (excluding discipline-specific clinical interventions) and primary health care policy issues. Australian Journal of Primary Health is an important international resource for all individuals and organisations involved in the planning, provision or practise of primary health care. Australian Journal of Primary Health is published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of La Trobe University.
期刊最新文献
Australian healthcare professionals’ beliefs and practice behaviours in management of chronic pelvic pain: a cross-sectional survey General practice registrars’ practice in outer metropolitan Australia: a cross-sectional comparison with rural and inner metropolitan areas Hepatitis C elimination: amplifying the role of primary care nurses in Australia Abstracts of the Australasian Association for Academic Primary Care (AAAPC) Annual Research Conference Older patients want to talk about sexual health in Australian primary care
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1