Objective

To determine whether Bedsider text message and e-mail reminders increase family planning contraceptive continuation and appointment rates.

Material and methods

We trained staff at three high-volume Family Planning, Access, Care, and Treatment (Family PACT) clinics to enroll women through a special portal to receive text message or e-mail reminders for contraceptive refills and clinic appointments. Women were matched by contraceptive method, time frame of index visit, age group, and language preference to Family PACT clients at comparison sites that did not use the Bedsider program. Family PACT claims data was used to assess the contraceptive coverage of Bedsider and comparison women over 12 months. We assessed differences in contraceptive coverage between the two groups using McNemar's test of matched comparisons. Clinic records from one clinic were available to assess impact on kept appointment rates.

Results

Of the 488 women enrolled, 370 had a claim for a hormonal method (oral contraceptive, patch, ring, contraceptive injection) in the Family PACT database. Matching resulted in 365 matched pairs. The median length of enrollment in the reminder system was 115 days (16 weeks). A greater percentage of Bedsider women returned on time for contraceptive injections than women in the comparison group. However, McNemar's test showed no differences in contraceptive coverage between the intervention and comparison groups. Kept appointment rates showed a statistically significant increase after the intervention at the clinic providing data.

Conclusion

Contraceptive injection users showed a positive impact from receiving reminders, but overall there was no impact of the Bedsider reminders on return on time for contraceptive refills and injections. We were able to measure a significant increase in kept appointment rates at one clinic using the Bedsider text message and e-mail reminder system.

Background

Annual chlamydia screening is recommended for adolescent and young adult females and targeted screening is recommended for women ≥26 years based on risk. Although screening levels have increased over time, adherence to these guidelines varies, with high levels of adherence among Title X family planning providers. However, previous studies of provider variation in screening rates have not adjusted for differences in clinic and client population characteristics.

Methods

Administrative claims from the California Family Planning, Access, Care, and Treatment (Family PACT) program were used to (1) examine clinic and client sociodemographic characteristics by provider group-Title X-funded public sector, non-Title X public sector, and private sector providers, and (2) estimate age-specific screening and differences in rates by provider group during 2009.

Results

Among 833 providers, Title X providers were more likely than non-Title X public sector providers and private sector providers to serve a higher client volume, a higher proportion of clients aged ≤25 years, and a higher proportion of African American clients. Non-Title X public providers were more likely to be located in rural areas, compared with Title X grantees and private sector providers. Title X providers had the largest absolute difference in screening rates for young females vs. older females (10.9%). Unadjusted screening rates for young clients were lower among non-Title X public sector providers (54%) compared with private sector and Title X providers (64% each). After controlling for provider group, urban location, client volume, and percent African American, private sector providers had higher screening rates than Title X and non-Title X public providers.

Conclusions

Screening rates for females were higher among private providers compared with Title X and non-Title X public providers. However, only Title X providers were more likely to adhere to screening guidelines through high screening rates for young females and low screening rates for older females.

Background

Considerable racial and ethnic disparities have been identified in maternal and infant health in the United States, and access to postpartum care likely contributes to these disparities. Contraception is an important component of postpartum care that helps women and their families achieve optimal interpregnancy intervals and avoid rapid repeat pregnancies and preterm births. National quality measurements to assess postpartum contraception are being developed and piloted.

Objective

To assess racial/ethnic variation in receipt of postpartum care and contraception among low-income women in California.

Study design

We conducted a prospective cohort study of 199,860 Californian women aged 15-44 with a Medicaid-funded delivery in 2012. We examined racial/ethnic variation of postpartum care and contraception using multivariable logistic regression to control for maternal age, language, cesarean delivery, Medicaid program, and residence in a primary care shortage area (PCSA).

Results

Only one-half of mothers attended a postpartum visit (49.4%) or received contraception (47.5%). Compared with white women, black women attended postpartum visits less often (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.76), were less likely to receive any contraception (aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89) and were less likely to receive highly effective contraception (aOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.58-0.71). Women with Spanish as their primary language were more likely to get any contraception (aOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.19) but had significantly lower odds of receiving a highly effective method (aOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99) compared with women with English as their primary language. Similarly, women in PCSAs had a greater odds of getting any contraception (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09), but 24% lower odds of getting highly effective contraception than women not living in PCSAs (aOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.73-0.79).

Conclusion

Significant racial/ethnic disparities exist among low-income Californian mothers' likelihood of attending postpartum visits and receiving postpartum contraception as well as receiving highly effective contraception.

Background

This article presents the extent to which providers enrolled in California's Family Planning, Access, Care, and Treatment (Family PACT) program offer contraceptive methods onsite, thus eliminating one important access barrier. Family PACT has a diverse provider network, including public-sector providers receiving Title X funding, public-sector providers not receiving Title X funding, and private-sector providers. We explored whether Title X funding enhances providers' ability to offer contraceptive methods that require specialized skills onsite.

Methods

Data were derived from 1,072 survey responses to a 2010 provider-capacity survey matched by unique identifier to administrative claims data.

Results

A significantly greater proportion of Title X-funded providers compared to non-Title X public and private providers offered onsite services for the following studied methods: intrauterine contraceptives (90% Title X, 51% public non-Title X, 38% private); contraceptive implants (58% Title X, 19% public non-Title X, 7% private); vasectomy (8% Title X, 4% public non-Title X, 1% private); and fertility-awareness methods (69% Title X, 55% public non-Title X, 49% private) (all p<0.0001). The association between onsite provision and Title X funding remained after stratifying individually by clinic specialty, facility capacity to provide reproductive health services (based on staffing), and rural/urban location.

Conclusions

Extra funding for publicly funded family-planning programs, through mechanisms such as Title X, appears to be associated with increased onsite access to a wide range of contraceptive services, including those that require special skills and training.

Objectives

To compare rates of postpartum care and contraception provided to women with gestational or preconception diabetes mellitus to women with no known diabetes mellitus.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of 199,860 women aged 15-44 years who were continuously enrolled in California's Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, from 43 days prior to 99 days after delivering in 2012. Claims for postpartum clinic visits and contraceptive supplies were compared for 11,494 mothers with preconception diabetes, 17,970 mothers with gestational diabetes, and 170,396 mothers without diabetes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to control for maternal age, race/ethnicity, primary language, residence in a primary care shortage area, state-funded healthcare program and Cesarean delivery, when examining the effects of diabetes on postpartum care and contraception.

Results

Although postpartum clinic visits were more common with diabetes (55% preconception, 55% gestational, 48% no diabetes, p=<.0001), almost half did not receive any postpartum care within 99 days of delivery. Women with pregnancies complicated by diabetes were more likely to receive permanent contraception than women without diabetes (preconception diabetes, aOR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.31-1.47; gestational diabetes, aOR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.14-1.27). However, among women without permanent contraception, less than half received any reversible contraception within 99 days of delivery (44% preconception, 43% gestational, 43% no diabetes) and less effective, barrier contraceptives were more commonly provided to women with preconception diabetes than women without diabetes (aOR: 1.24, 95% CI:1.16-1.33).

Conclusions

Low-income Californian women with pregnancies complicated by diabetes do not consistently receive postpartum care or contraception that may prevent complication of future pregnancies.

Implications

Efforts are needed to improve rates of provision of postpartum care and high quality contraceptive services to low income women in California, particularly following pregnancies complicated by diabetes.

The cumulative total of persons forced to leave their country for fear of persecution or organized violence reached an unprecedented 24.5 million by the end of 2015. Providing equitable access to appropriate health services for these highly diverse newcomers poses challenges for receiving countries. In this case study, we illustrate the importance of translating epidemiology into policy to address the health needs of refugees by highlighting examples of what works as well as identifying important policy-relevant gaps in knowledge. First, we formed an international working group of epidemiologists and health services researchers to identify available literature on the intersection of epidemiology, policy, and refugee health. Second, we created a synopsis of findings to inform a recommendation for integration of policy and epidemiology to support refugee health in the United States and other high-income receiving countries. Third, we identified eight key areas to guide the involvement of epidemiologists in addressing refugee health concerns. The complexity and uniqueness of refugee health issues, and the need to develop sustainable management information systems, require epidemiologists to expand their repertoire of skills to identify health patterns among arriving refugees, monitor access to appropriately designed health services, address inequities, and communicate with policy makers and multidisciplinary teams.