Search

Background and Objectives: Only 20% of family physicians report providing long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). Clinician-related barriers include confidence and comfort with LARC counseling and insertion/removal, and limited availability and uptake. Training during residency may address barriers and increase access/availability of LARC to support reproductive autonomy. We sought to determine the impact of block scheduling LARC clinics on resident comfort and confidence with LARC counseling and insertion/removal., Methods: LARC block schedules were established in a Midwest family medicine residency's primary clinic (FMC) and in a federally qualified health center rotation clinic. Baseline and end-of-study surveys, compared by Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, were used to assess comfort and confidence with counseling and inserting LARC. The number of LARC devices placed at the FMC were collected for the intervention year and the year prior., Results: Twenty of 30 residents completed the baseline survey; 13 completed the end-of-study survey. At the group and individual levels, comfort increased for counseling on Levonorgestrel (LNG) intrauterine devices (IUDs) and for inserting implants and LNG IUDs. Individual comfort increased for copper IUDs. Resident willingness to recommend LARC increased, and more devices were placed during the intervention year than the year prior in the FMC (all: P<.05)., Conclusions: Block scheduling of LARC clinics was associated with increased residents' comfort and confidence with counseling and placement of implants (LNG IUDs) and with an increase in LARCs placed at one clinic. Changes to scheduling may be an effective educational strategy that may increase access/availability to LARC.

Background and Objectives: Family medicine residency program directors (PD) oversee the training of every new family physician in the United States. The median tenure of family medicine PDs is 4.5 years, and factors relating to length of tenure and reasons for departure are not well known. This exploratory study examined why family medicine PDs leave their position., Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with family medicine PDs who recently left their director position. Semistructured and structured questions asked about their PD experience and factors contributing to stepping away from the PD role. We analyzed answers quantitatively and qualitatively., Results: When comparing cases with longer (>6 years) and shorter tenures (≤6 years), 25 PDs described differing pathways but few major differences in why they left the position. The two groups were distinguished more by their similarities than their differences. The majority left voluntarily due to a combination of factors, not a single factor. Most PDs left the position because of their desire and opportunities to move up, move over, or move on, and not because of dissatisfaction with the job. Succession plans helped with PD decisions to leave the position, knowing that the program was in good hands., Conclusions: Family medicine PDs left the position due to multiple factors primarily related to career pathway choices and not solely due to demands of the job. Additional research with PDs of very short tenures and long tenures may yield further details about sustaining PDs in residency education to successfully train the next generation of family physicians.

Background and Objectives: Family medicine is continuously advanced by a reinforcing research enterprise. In the United States, each national family medicine organization contributes to the discipline's research foundations. We sought to map the unique and interorganizational roles of the eight US family medicine professional organizations participating in Family Medicine for America's Health (FMAHealth) in supporting family medicine research., Methods: We interviewed leaders and reviewed supporting materials from organizations participating in FMAHealth. We explored existing activities, capacity, and collaboration. We identified areas of strength and opportunities for growth and synergy with respect to how the family of family medicine nurtures family medicine research., Results: The FMAHealth organizations support certain aspects of the family medicine research infrastructure. Six domains were identified through this work: showcasing scholarship, communication and dissemination, workforce development, data-driven initiatives, performing primary research, and advocacy for family medicine research. Each organization's areas of emphasis differ, but we found substantial collaboration on initiatives across organizations, possibly attributable to the fact that many members belong to more than one organization., Conclusions: Deliberate contributions to each of the six domains identified herein will be important for the future success of family medicine research. Key opportunity areas described here include coordinated and strategic advocacy for increased funding for family medicine research, dedicated investment in training opportunities, protected effort to grow the next generation of family medicine researchers, pilot funding to build a research base for future high-impact research, and infrastructure to facilitate cross-institutional collaboration and data sharing.