Search

Objective: To explore if abortion care providers in the Republic of Ireland experience abortion-related stigma.Study Design: The survey was distributed to abortion care providers working in community and hospital units nationwide. We measured stigma using the 35-item version of the Abortion Providers Stigma Scale (APSS). We also collected data on demography, professional involvement in providing abortion care, and risk of burnout (measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory).Results: Of the 309 providers invited to take part, 156 (50.5%) completed the survey between January to May 2020. The sample reported a mean score of 70.9 on the total scale of the APSS. This was comparable with the scores of providers in a Massachusetts-based study but was lower than a sample of providers from across the USA. Linear regression analyses found that the Irish hospital-based obstetricians (b = 10.51, 95% CI 3.16-17.86) and midwives/nurses (b = 10.88, 95% CI 2.3-19.47) reported higher stigma than their colleagues working in general practice.Conclusions: Comparing the scores of the current sample to published studies highlight the factors that may drive stigma in the Irish context. The Irish providers reported fewer issues in disclosing their abortion work than providers in the USA, which may be explained as they also reported fewer experiences of judgment and discrimination. They did, however, report higher levels of social isolation. Additionally, the findings suggest that providing surgical and/or later-gestation abortion care and providing within the hospital environment may present additional challenges for staff which increase level of stigma.Implications: Despite widespread support for the expansion of the abortion care services, providers in Ireland still experience stigma related to this work. Our findings suggest that Irish providers, particularly those working in hospitals, may benefit from supports to reduce abortion-related isolation and challenges posed by collegial interactions or later-gestation care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies have suggested that barbed sutures for wound closure in TKAs are an acceptable alternative to standard methods. However others have observed a higher risk of wound-related complications with barbed sutures.Questions/purposes: (1) Do 90-day TKA reoperation rates differ between patients undergoing a barbed suture arthrotomy closure compared with a traditional interrupted closure? (2) Do the 90-day reoperation rates of wound-related, deep infection, and arthrotomy failure complications differ between barbed suture and traditional closures?Methods: A retrospective analysis of a longitudinally maintained institutional primary TKA database was conducted on all TKAs performed between April 2011 and September 2015. We compared 884 primary TKAs, where the arthrotomy was closed with a barbed suture, with 1598 primary TKAs closed with the standard interrupted suture. After barbed sutures were introduced at our institution in 2012, the majority of surgeons gradually switched to barbed suture closures, with many using them exclusively by the end of the data collection period. We confirmed in-person followups and available data past 90 days for 97.4% (1556 of 1598) of the knees in patients with standard sutures and 94.8% (838 of 884) of the knees in patients with barbed sutures. Our primary endpoint was all-cause 90-day reoperation; our secondary endpoints considered: wound-related reoperation, as defined by previous studies; deep infection per Musculoskeletal Infection Society guidelines; and arthrotomy failure, defined intraoperatively as an opening or dehiscence through the previous arthrotomy closure. T tests and chi-square analyses were used to determine differences between the suture cohorts, and bivariate logistic regression was used to determine associations with our 90-day reoperation outcomes.Results: With the numbers available, there was no association between suture type and 90-day all-cause reoperation (odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% CI, 0.82-3.53; p = 0.156). Suture type was not associated with wound-related reoperation (OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 0.97-7.69; p = 0.058). A 0.6% (five of 884) arthrotomy failure rate was observed in the barbed cohort while no (0 of 1598) arthrotomy failures were noted in the traditional group (p = 0.003). Deep infections were rare in both groups (two of 884 barbed sutures, 0 of 1598 standard sutures) and could not be compared.Conclusions: Although we saw no difference in overall and wound-related 90-day reoperation rates by suture type with the numbers available, we observed a higher frequency in our secondary question of arthrotomy failures when barbed sutures are used for arthrotomy closure during TKA. Given the widespread use of this closure technique, our preliminary pilot results warrant further investigation in larger multicenter cohorts.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]