Clinic factors associated with utilization of a pregnancy-intention screening tool in community health centers.

Community health centers Contraception Family planning Preconception Pregnancy-intention screening Primary care

Journal

Contraception
ISSN: 1879-0518
Titre abrégé: Contraception
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0234361

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 2021
Historique:
received: 10 09 2020
revised: 04 02 2021
accepted: 09 02 2021
pubmed: 17 2 2021
medline: 16 10 2021
entrez: 16 2 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Routine pregnancy-intention screening in the primary care setting is a promising practice to help patients achieve their reproductive goals. We aim to describe the utilization of a pregnancy-intention screening tool integrated in the electronic health record (EHR) of a national network of community health centers (CHCs) and identify clinic-level factors associated with tool use. We conducted a clinic-level retrospective observational study to assess tool utilization during the first 3 years after the tool was made available in the EHR (November 2015 to October 2018). We describe characteristics of clinics with higher tool utilization (≥90th percentile) versus lower utilization (<90th percentile) and the types of providers who used the tool. We then employ negative binomial regression to identify independent clinic-level factors associated with tool utilization. Across 194 clinics in our study sample which served 289,754 eligible female patients, the tool was used for 113,116 (39%). Medical assistants performed 60.3% of screenings and clinicians performed 11.2%. CHCs with higher tool utilization rates were more likely to be located in rural settings (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.07-2.87) and serve patient populations with higher proportions of women (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.24-1.41) and lower proportions of patients with non-English language preference (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.89-0.95). Many health centers utilized pregnancy-intention screening after an EHR-based tool was made available, though overall screening rates were low. Additional study of implementation strategies and effectiveness of pregnancy-intention screening tools is needed. Implementation of future pregnancy-intention screening interventions must be tailored to address clinic-level barriers and facilitators to screening.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33592233
pii: S0010-7824(21)00032-9
doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2021.02.003
pmc: PMC9725109
mid: NIHMS1851988
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Observational Study Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

336-341

Subventions

Organisme : AHRQ HHS
ID : R01 HS025155
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Références

Contraception. 2003 Feb;67(2):115-32
pubmed: 12586322
Healthc Policy. 2010 Nov;6(2):67-84
pubmed: 22043224
N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 3;374(9):843-52
pubmed: 26962904
J Rural Health. 2000 Fall;16(4):349-56
pubmed: 11218321
J Am Board Fam Med. 2013 May-Jun;26(3):271-8
pubmed: 23657695
Contracept Reprod Med. 2018 Dec 17;3:21
pubmed: 30574355
Contraception. 2009 Mar;79(3):194-8
pubmed: 19185672
J Gen Intern Med. 2000 Jan;15(1):8-15
pubmed: 10632828
Matern Child Health J. 2015 Sep;19(9):1974-84
pubmed: 25663654
Med Care. 1998 Aug;36(8 Suppl):AS21-30
pubmed: 9708580
Matern Child Health J. 2017 Mar;21(3):670-704
pubmed: 28093686
Contraception. 2020 Feb;101(2):91-96
pubmed: 31881220
Psychol Bull. 1995 Nov;118(3):392-404
pubmed: 7501743
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 May 15;20(1):428
pubmed: 32414376
Am J Prev Med. 2019 Aug;57(2):241-249
pubmed: 31326008
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Dec;199(6 Suppl 2):S280-9
pubmed: 19081422
Fam Pract. 2018 Mar 27;35(2):122-131
pubmed: 28973668
Contraception. 2013 Jul;88(1):3-6
pubmed: 23773527
Diabetes Care. 1993 Feb;16(2):450-5
pubmed: 8432216
Ann Fam Med. 2012 Jan-Feb;10(1):63-74
pubmed: 22230833
J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2017;28(4):1477-1486
pubmed: 29176109
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jun;214(6):681-8
pubmed: 26875950
Matern Child Health J. 2012 Dec;16(9):1854-61
pubmed: 22173331
Fam Med. 2020 Feb;52(2):112-119
pubmed: 32050265
Womens Health Issues. 2006 Mar-Apr;16(2):80-8
pubmed: 16638524

Auteurs

Brigit Hatch (B)

Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA; OCHIN, Portland, OR, USA. Electronic address: adamusb@ohsu.edu.

Teresa Schmidt (T)

OCHIN, Portland, OR, USA.

Eva Davis (E)

Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.

Anna Rose Templeton (AR)

OCHIN, Portland, OR, USA.

Megan Hoopes (M)

OCHIN, Portland, OR, USA.

Blair Darney (B)

Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA; Oregon Health & Science University-Portland State University School of Public Health, Portland, OR, USA; Instituto Nacional de Salud Pulica, Centro de Investigacion en Salud Poblacional, Cuernavaca, Mexico.

Erika K Cottrell (EK)

Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA; OCHIN, Portland, OR, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH