PURPOSE: Although pediatricians are primary care providers for most adolescents, pediatric residents receive limited training on long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods. This study aimed to characterize pediatric resident comfort with placing contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices (IUDs) and assess pediatric resident interest in obtaining this training.

METHODS: Pediatric residents in the United States were invited to participate in a survey assessing comfort with LARC methods and interest in LARC training during pediatric residency. Bivariate comparisons used Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank sum testing. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess associations between primary outcomes and covariates including geographic region, training level, and career plans.

RESULTS: Six hundred twenty seven pediatric residents across the United States completed the survey. Participants were predominantly female (68.4%, n = 429), self-identified their race as White (66.1%, n = 412), and anticipated a career in a subspecialty other than Adolescent Medicine (53.0%, n = 326). Most residents were confident counseling patients on the risks and benefits, side effects, and effective use of contraceptive implants (55.6%, n = 344) and both hormonal and nonhormonal IUDs (53.0%, n = 324). Few residents reported comfort with inserting contraceptive implants (13.6%, n = 84) or IUDs (6.3%, n = 39), with most of these respondents having learned these skills as a medical student. Most participants believed that residents should receive training on insertion of contraceptive implants (72.3%, n = 447) and IUDs (62.5%, n = 374).

DISCUSSION: Although most pediatric residents believe LARC training should be a component of pediatric residency training, few pediatric residents are comfortable with provision of this care.

PURPOSE: Although pediatricians are primary care providers for most adolescents, pediatric residents receive limited training on long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods. This study aimed to characterize pediatric resident comfort with placing contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices (IUDs) and assess pediatric resident interest in obtaining this training.

METHODS: Pediatric residents in the United States were invited to participate in a survey assessing comfort with LARC methods and interest in LARC training during pediatric residency. Bivariate comparisons used Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank sum testing. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess associations between primary outcomes and covariates including geographic region, training level, and career plans.

RESULTS: Six hundred twenty seven pediatric residents across the United States completed the survey. Participants were predominantly female (68.4%, n = 429), self-identified their race as White (66.1%, n = 412), and anticipated a career in a subspecialty other than Adolescent Medicine (53.0%, n = 326). Most residents were confident counseling patients on the risks and benefits, side effects, and effective use of contraceptive implants (55.6%, n = 344) and both hormonal and nonhormonal IUDs (53.0%, n = 324). Few residents reported comfort with inserting contraceptive implants (13.6%, n = 84) or IUDs (6.3%, n = 39), with most of these respondents having learned these skills as a medical student. Most participants believed that residents should receive training on insertion of contraceptive implants (72.3%, n = 447) and IUDs (62.5%, n = 374).

DISCUSSION: Although most pediatric residents believe LARC training should be a component of pediatric residency training, few pediatric residents are comfortable with provision of this care.

Importance: In May 2019, new federal regulations regarding Title X funding were introduced. There has been no formal evaluation of the impact of this regulatory shift as it pertains to minors' access to services.

Objective: To explore the geography of federally funded clinics providing confidential reproductive care to adolescents following changes to Title X funding regulations.

Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study used a population-based sample of US Census tracts. All clinics participating in the Title X program in August 2018 and August 2020 were included in the analysis. Data were analyzed from January to December 2021.

Exposures: Period, defined as before and after the 2019 Title X rule change (August 2018 and August 2020, respectively).

Main Outcomes and Measures: US Census tracts were evaluated for the availability of confidential family planning care within a 30-minute drive, according to the presence of a Title X clinic or a permissive state law. Census tracts in which minors lost access to confidential care after the rule change were characterized in terms of demographic characteristics. Univariate logistic regression evaluated associations between Census tract characteristics and the odds of losing vs maintaining access to legally protected confidential minor services.

Results: The study included 72 620 Census tracts, accounting for approximately 324 697 728 US residents (99.96% of the population). After the Title X rule change, 1743 clinics in the Title X program left (39.0%) and minors living in 6299 Census tracts (8.7%) lost access to confidential family planning care, corresponding to an estimated 933 649 youth aged 15 to 17 years. Minors living in rural Census tracts (odds ratio [OR], 1.27; 95% CI, 1.18-1.36) and those in the Midwest (OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 2.24-2.60) had higher odds of losing access to care. Minors living in Census tracts with a higher Social Vulnerability Index (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.47-0.55), a larger proportion of Black individuals (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.31-0.37), and/or a larger proportion of Hispanic individuals (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.42-0.49) were less likely to lose access to care.

Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that there were losses in access to legally protected confidential reproductive health services for youth after the 2019 Title X rule change. Although evidence-based Title X guidelines have since been reinstated, state laws that ensure adolescent confidentiality in obtaining family planning services may protect youth from future alterations to the Title X program.

<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Advocacy regarding child health policy is a core tenet of pediatrics. Previous research has demonstrated that most pediatric providers believe collective advocacy and political involvement are essential aspects of their profession, but less is known about how pediatric providers engage with families about policy issues that impact child health. The objectives of this study were to examine providers' perceptions and practices with regards to discussing health policy issues with families and to identify provider characteristics associated with having these discussions.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>In this cross-sectional mixed methods study, pediatric resident physicians, attending physcians, and nurse practitioners at primary care clinics within a large academic health system were surveyed to assess (1) perceived importance of, (2) frequency of, and (3) barriers to and facilitators of health policy discussions with families. Multivariable ordinal regression was used to determine provider characteristics (including demographics, practice location, and extent of civic engagement) associated with frequency of these discussions. A subset of providers participated in subsequent focus groups designed to help interpret quantitative findings.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>The overall survey response rate was 155/394 (39%). The majority of respondents (76%) felt pediatricians should talk to families about health policy issues affecting children, but most providers (69%) reported never or rarely having these discussions. Factors associated with discussing policy issues included being an attending physician/nurse practitioner (OR 8.22, 95% CI 2.04-33.1) and urban practice setting (OR 3.85, 95% CI 1.03-14.3). Barriers included feeling uninformed about relevant issues and time constraints. In provider focus groups, four key themes emerged: (1) providers felt discussing policy issues would help inform and empower families; (2) providers frequently discussed social service programs, but rarely discussed policies governing these programs; (3) time constraints and concerns about partisan bias were a barrier to conversations; and (4) use of support staff and handouts with information about policy changes could help facilitate more frequent conversations.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>Pediatric providers felt it was important to talk to families about child health policy issues, but few providers reported having such conversations in practice. Primary care practices should consider incorporating workflow changes that promote family engagement in relevant health policy discussions.</p>