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-6dbcb7884d-64ff6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-14T01:23:28.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 6 - Building Evidence through Research

The Benefits of Integrating Research Training into Fellowship in Family Planning Programs

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2021

By
Maria I. Rodriguez  and
Alisa B. Goldberg
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

Medical research is the basis of better health for the world’s people.Family planning provides among the best examples of the powerful association between research and health.Modern contraception and safer abortion are direct products of fifty years of basic and clinical, laboratory and population-based, research.Over the past 20 years training specifically for contraception and abortion research has created a “new generation” of investigators who are building the “evidence-base” for contraceptive and abortion care.This chapter identifies some of the most important contributions of the graduates of “The Fellowship in Family Planning” and their colleagues at leading medical schools and hospitals, WHO, CDC and other research organizations.It describes their training in research methods and the impact it has had on clinical practice and women’s health worldwide.

Keywords

ResearchevidenceFellowship in Family Planningcontraceptive researchabortion researchresearch methods
Type
Chapter
Information
Advancing Women's Health Through Medical Education
A Systems Approach in Family Planning and Abortion
 , pp. 74 - 82
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

Fort, DG, Herr, TM, Shaw, PL, Gutzman, KE, Starren, JB. Mapping the evolving definitions of translational research. J Clin Transl Sci. 2017;1(1):60–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berwick, DM, Nolan, TW, Whittington, J. The triple aim: care, health, and cost. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(3):759–769.Google Scholar
Sackett, DL, Rosenberg, WM, Gray, JA, Haynes, RB, Richardson, WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:3–5.Google ScholarPubMed
Sackett, DL, Rosenberg, WM. The need for evidence-based medicine. J R Soc Med. 1995;88(11):620–624.Google Scholar
Straus, SE, Glasziou, P, Richardson, S, Haynes, RB. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. 5th ed. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2018.Google Scholar
Cook, RJ, Dickens, BM. Reducing stigma in reproductive health. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;125(1):89–92.Google Scholar
Cook, RJ, Cusack, S, Dickens, BM. Unethical female stereotyping in reproductive health. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010;109(3):255–258.Google Scholar
Norris, A, Bessett, D, Steinberg, JR, Kavanaugh, ML, De Zordo, S, Becker, D. Abortion stigma: a reconceptualization of constituents, causes, and consequences. Womens Health Issues. 2011;21(3 Suppl):S49–S54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geibel, S, Hossain, SM, Pulerwitz, J, et al. Stigma reduction training improves healthcare provider attitudes toward, and experiences of, young marginalized people in Bangladesh. J Adolesc Health. 2017;60(2S2):S35–S44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guiahi, M, Davis, A. First-trimester abortion in women with medical conditions: release date October 2012 SFP Guideline #20122. Contraception. 2012;86(6):622–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diedrich, J, Drey, E. Induction of fetal demise before abortion. Contraception. 2010;81(6):462–473.Google ScholarPubMed
Roe, AH, Bartz, D. Society of Family Planning clinical recommendations: contraception after surgical abortion. Contraception. 2019;99(1):2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice Bulletin No. 143: medical management of first-trimester abortion. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(3):676–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerns, J, Steinauer, J. Management of postabortion hemorrhage: release date November 2012 SFP Guideline #20131. Contraception. 2013;87(3):331–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmann, S, Dalve-Endres, A, Drey, EA. Clinical guidelines. Cervical preparation for surgical abortion from 20 to 24 weeks’ gestation. Contraception. 2008;77(4):308–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lohr, PA, Lyus, R, Prager, S. Use of intrauterine devices in nulliparous women. Contraception. 2017;95(6):529–537.Google Scholar
Levy, BS, Ness, DL, Weinberger, SE. Consensus guidelines for facilities performing outpatient procedures: evidence over ideology. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(2):255–260.Google Scholar
Allen, RH, Singh, R. Society of Family Planning clinical guidelines pain control in surgical abortion part 1 – local anesthesia and minimal sedation. Contraception. 2018;97(6):471–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, L, Padua, E, Hart, KD, Edelman, A, Jensen, JT. Comparing cervical mucus changes in response to an oral progestin or oestrogen withdrawal in ovarian-suppressed women: a clinical pilot. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2019;24(3):209–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Han, L, Padua, E, Edelman, A, Jensen, JT. Appraising cervical mucus: a new approach to evaluating contraceptives. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2018;23(1):78–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Han, L, Taub, R, Jensen, JT. Cervical mucus and contraception: what we know and what we don’t. Contraception. 2017;96(5):310–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patil, E, Thurmond, A, Edelman, A, et al. Pressure dynamics in the non-gravid uterus: intrauterine pressure cannot confirm tubal occlusion after non-surgical permanent contraception. Contraception. 2017;96(5):330–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, JT, Hanna, C, Yao, S, Thompson, E, Bauer, C, Slayden, OD. Transcervical administration of polidocanol foam prevents pregnancy in female baboons. Contraception. 2016;94(5):527–533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slayden, OD, Lee, DO, Yao, S, Jensen, JT. Polidocanol induced tubal occlusion in nonhuman primates: immunohistochemical detection of collagen I-V. Contraception. 2016;94(5):521–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, JT, Hanna, C, Yao, S, Bauer, C, Morgan, TK, Slayden, OD. Characterization of tubal occlusion after transcervical polidocanol foam (PF) infusion in baboons. Contraception. 2015;92(2):96–102.Google Scholar
Jensen, JT, Hanna, C, Yao, S, et al. Blockade of tubal patency following transcervical administration of polidocanol foam: initial studies in rhesus macaques. Contraception. 2014;89(6):540–549.Google Scholar
Jensen, JT, Rodriguez, MI, Liechtenstein-Zabrak, J, Zalanyi, S. Transcervical polidocanol as a nonsurgical method of female sterilization: a pilot study. Contraception. 2004;70(2):111–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luo, D, Westhoff, CL, Edelman, AB, Natavio, M, Stanczyk, FZ, Jusko, WJ. Altered pharmacokinetics of combined oral contraceptives in obesity – multistudy assessment. Contraception. 2019;99(4):256–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edelman, A, Trussell, J, Aiken, ARA, Portman, DJ, Chiodo, JA, 3rd, Garner, EIO. The emerging role of obesity in short-acting hormonal contraceptive effectiveness. Contraception. 2018;97(5):371–377.Google Scholar
Edelman, AB, Cherala, G, Blue, SW, Erikson, DW, Jensen, JT. Impact of obesity on the pharmacokinetics of levonorgestrel-based emergency contraception: single and double dosing. Contraception. 2016;94(1):52–57.Google Scholar
Edelman, AB, Cherala, G, Munar, MY, McInnis, M, Stanczyk, FZ, Jensen, JT. Correcting oral contraceptive pharmacokinetic alterations due to obesity: a randomized controlled trial. Contraception. 2014;90(5):550–556.Google Scholar
Lazorwitz, A, Aquilante, CL, Oreschak, K, Sheeder, J, Guiahi, M, Teal, S. Influence of genetic variants on steady-state etonogestrel concentrations among contraceptive implant users. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(4):783–794.Google Scholar
Renner, RM, Edelman, AB, Nichols, MD, Jensen, JT, Lim, JY, Bednarek, PH. Refining paracervical block techniques for pain control in first trimester surgical abortion: a randomized controlled noninferiority trial. Contraception. 2016;94(5):461–466.Google Scholar
Allen, RH, Fortin, J, Bartz, D, Goldberg, AB, Clark, MA. Women’s preferences for pain control during first-trimester surgical abortion: a qualitative study. Contraception. 2012;85(4):413–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romero, I, Turok, D, Gilliam, M. A randomized trial of tramadol versus ibuprofen as an adjunct to pain control during vacuum aspiration abortion. Contraception. 2008;77(1):56–59.Google Scholar
Dragoman, MV, Grossman, D, Kapp, N, et al. Two prophylactic medication approaches in addition to a pain control regimen for early medical abortion < 63 days’ gestation with mifepristone and misoprostol: study protocol for a randomized, controlled trial. Reprod Health. 2016;13(1):132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conti, JA, Lerma, K, Shaw, KA, Blumenthal, PD. Self-administered lidocaine gel for pain control with first-trimester surgical abortion: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(2):297–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carr, S, Espey, E. Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease among adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2013;52(4 Suppl):S22–S28.Google Scholar
Bryant, AG, Kamanga, G, Stuart, GS, Haddad, LB, Meguid, T, Mhango, C. Immediate postpartum versus 6-week postpartum intrauterine device insertion: a feasibility study of a randomized controlled trial. Afr J Reprod Health. 2013;17(2):72–79.Google ScholarPubMed
Chen, BA, Reeves, MF, Creinin, MD, Schwarz, EB. Postplacental or delayed levonorgestrel intrauterine device insertion and breast-feeding duration. Contraception. 2011;84(5):499–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolfe, KK, Wilson, MD, Hou, MY, Creinin, MD. An updated assessment of postpartum sterilization fulfillment after vaginal delivery. Contraception. 2017;96(1):41–46.Google Scholar
Zite, N, Wuellner, S, Gilliam, M. Failure to obtain desired postpartum sterilization: risk and predictors. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(4):794–799.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, MI, Seuc, A, Sokal, DC. Comparative efficacy of postpartum sterilisation with the titanium clip versus partial salpingectomy: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2013;120(1):108–112.Google Scholar
Dilley, SE, Havrilesky, LJ, Bakkum-Gamez, J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;146(2):373–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodriguez, MI, Darney, BG, Elman, E, Linz, R, Caughey, AB, McConnell, KJ. Examining quality of contraceptive services for adolescents in Oregon’s family planning program. Contraception. 2015;91(4):328–335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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–e6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krashin, JW, Edelman, AB, Nichols, MD, Allen, AJ, Caughey, AB, Rodriguez, MI. Prohibiting consent: what are the costs of denying permanent contraception concurrent with abortion care? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(1):76e1–e10.Google Scholar
Burlone, S, Edelman, AB, Caughey, AB, Trussell, J, Dantas, S, Rodriguez, MI. Extending contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act saves public funds. Contraception. 2013;87(2):143–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jarlenski, M, Borrero, S, La Charite, T, Zite, NB. Episode-based payment for perinatal care in medicaid: implications for practice and policy. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(6):1080–1084.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zite, N, Wuellner, S, Gilliam, M. Barriers to obtaining a desired postpartum tubal sterilization. Contraception. 2006;73(4):404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilliam, ML, Neustadt, A, Gordon, R. A call to incorporate a reproductive justice agenda into reproductive health clinical practice and policy. Contraception. 2009;79(4):243–246.Google Scholar
Hatcher, RA. Contraceptive Technology. 21st ed. New York: Ardent Media; 2018: xxx.Google Scholar
Hubacher, D, Grimes, DA. Noncontraceptive health benefits of intrauterine devices: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2002;57(2):120–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hubacher, D, Kavanaugh, M. Historical record-setting trends in IUD use in the United States. Contraception. 2018;98(6):467–470.Google Scholar
Hubacher, D, Finer, LB, Espey, E. Renewed interest in intrauterine contraception in the United States: evidence and explanation. Contraception. 2011;83(4):291–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacIsaac, L, Espey, E. Intrauterine contraception: the pendulum swings back. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2007;34(1):91–111, ix.Google Scholar
Kavanaugh, ML, Jerman, J. Contraceptive method use in the United States: trends and characteristics between 2008, 2012 and 2014. Contraception. 2018;97(1):14–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Secura, GM, Allsworth, JE, Madden, T, Mullersman, JL, Peipert, JF. The Contraceptive CHOICE Project: reducing barriers to long-acting reversible contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(2):115 e1–e7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNicholas, C, Madden, T, Secura, G, Peipert, JF. The Contraceptive CHOICE Project round up: what we did and what we learned. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;57(4):635–643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Neil-Callahan, M, Peipert, JF, Zhao, Q, Madden, T, Secura, G. Twenty-four-month continuation of reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(5):1083–1091.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, MI, Evans, M, Espey, E. Advocating for immediate postpartum LARC: increasing access, improving outcomes, and decreasing cost. Contraception. 2014;90(5):468–471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teal, SB. Postpartum contraception: optimizing interpregnancy intervals. Contraception. 2014;89(6):487–488.Google Scholar
Han, L, Teal, SB, Sheeder, J, Tocce, K. Preventing repeat pregnancy in adolescents: is immediate postpartum insertion of the contraceptive implant cost effective? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(1):24 e1–e7.Google 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.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, MI, Caughey, AB, Edelman, A, Darney, PD, Foster, DG. Cost-benefit analysis of state- and hospital-funded postpartum intrauterine contraception at a university hospital for recent immigrants to the United States. Contraception. 2010;81(4):304–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gemmill, A, Lindberg, LD. Short interpregnancy intervals in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(1):64–71.Google Scholar
Ball, SJ, Pereira, G, Jacoby, P, de Klerk, N, Stanley, FJ. Re-evaluation of link between interpregnancy interval and adverse birth outcomes: retrospective cohort study matching two intervals per mother. BMJ. 2014;349:g4333.Google Scholar
White, K, Teal, SB, Potter, JE. Contraception after delivery and short interpregnancy intervals among women in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(6):1471–1477.Google Scholar
Gurney, EP, Sonalkar, S, McAllister, A, Sammel, MD, Schreiber, CA. Six-month expulsion of postplacental copper intrauterine devices placed after vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(2):183 e1–e9.Google Scholar
Whitaker, AK, Endres, LK, Mistretta, SQ, Gilliam, ML. Postplacental insertion of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device after cesarean delivery vs. delayed insertion: a randomized controlled trial. Contraception. 2014;89(6):534–539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jatlaoui, TC, Marcus, M, Jamieson, DJ, Goedken, P, Cwiak, C. Postplacental intrauterine device insertion at a teaching hospital. Contraception. 2014;89(6):528-33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prager, S, Gupta, P, Chilambwe, J, et al. Feasibility of training Zambian nurse-midwives to perform postplacental and postpartum insertions of intrauterine devices. Intl J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012;117(3):243–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, BA, Reeves, MF, Hayes, JL, Hohmann, HL, Perriera, LK, Creinin, MD. Postplacental or delayed insertion of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device after vaginal delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1079–1087.Google Scholar
Hayes, JL, Cwiak, C, Goedken, P, Zieman, M. A pilot clinical trial of ultrasound-guided postplacental insertion of a levonorgestrel intrauterine device. Contraception. 2007;76(4):292–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodriguez, MI, Edelman, A, Wallace, N, Jensen, JT. Denying postpartum sterilization to women with Emergency Medicaid does not reduce hospital charges. Contraception. 2008;78(3):232–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehlendorf, C, Rodriguez, MI, Levy, K, Borrero, S, Steinauer, J. Disparities in family planning. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(3):214–220.Google Scholar
DuBard, CA, Massing, MW. Trends in emergency Medicaid expenditures for recent and undocumented immigrants. JAMA. 2007;297(10):1085–1092.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swartz, JJ, Hainmueller, J, Lawrence, D, Rodriguez, MI. Expanding prenatal care to unauthorized immigrant women reduces infant mortality. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(5):938–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swartz, JJ, Hainmueller, J, Lawrence, D, Rodriguez, MI. Oregon’s expansion of prenatal care improved utilization among immigrant women. Matern Child Health J. 2019;23(2):173–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012.Google Scholar
Calonge, BN, Gayle, HD. The safety and quality of abortion services in the United States: what does the evidence indicate? Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(12):878–880.Google Scholar
Goldberg, AB, Fortin, JA, Drey, EA, et al. Cervical preparation before dilation and evacuation using adjunctive misoprostol or mifepristone compared with overnight osmotic dilators alone: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(3):599–609.Google Scholar
Shaw, KA, Shaw, JG, Hugin, M, Velasquez, G, Hopkins, FW, Blumenthal, PD. Adjunct mifepristone for cervical preparation prior to dilation and evacuation: a randomized trial. Contraception. 2015;91(4):313–319.Google Scholar
Drey, EA, Benson, LS, Sokoloff, A, Steinauer, JE, Roy, G, Jackson, RA. Buccal misoprostol plus laminaria for cervical preparation before dilation and evacuation at 21–23 weeks of gestation: a randomized controlled trial. Contraception. 2014;89(4):307–313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newmann, SJ, Dalve-Endres, A, Diedrich, JT, Steinauer, JE, Meckstroth, K, Drey, EA. Cervical preparation for second trimester dilation and evacuation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(8):CD007310.Google Scholar
MacIsaac, L, Grossman, D, Balistreri, E, Darney, P. A randomized controlled trial of laminaria, oral misoprostol, and vaginal misoprostol before abortion. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93(5 Pt 1):766–770.Google ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, AB, Drey, EA, Whitaker, AK, Kang, MS, Meckstroth, KR, Darney, PD. Misoprostol compared with laminaria before early second-trimester surgical abortion: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106(2):234–241.Google Scholar
Shaw, KA, Shaw, JG, Hugin, M, Velasquez, G, Hopkins, FW, Blumenthal, PD. Adjunct mifepristone for cervical preparation prior to dilation and evacuation: a randomized trial. Contraception. 2015;91(4):313–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, R, Teplin, V, Drey, E, Thomas, L, Darney, P. Digoxin to facilitate late second-trimester abortion: a randomized, masked, placebo-controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97(3):471–476.Google Scholar
Edelman, AB, Buckmaster, JG, Goetsch, MF, Nichols, MD, Jensen, JT. Cervical preparation using laminaria with adjunctive buccal misoprostol before second-trimester dilation and evacuation procedures: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(2):425–430.Google Scholar
Casey, FE, Ye, PP, Perritt, JD, Moreno-Ruiz, NL, Reeves, MF. A randomized controlled trial evaluating same-day mifepristone and misoprostol compared to misoprostol alone for cervical preparation prior to second-trimester surgical abortion. Contraception. 2016;94(2):127–133.Google Scholar
Shaw, KA, Topp, NJ, Shaw, JG, Blumenthal, PD. Mifepristone-misoprostol dosing interval and effect on induction abortion times: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(6):1335–1347.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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
×