Search

CDC estimates that influenza resulted in 9-41 million illnesses, 140,000-710,000 hospitalizations, and 12,000-52,000 deaths annually during 2010-2020. Persons from some racial and ethnic minority groups have historically experienced higher rates of severe influenza and had lower influenza vaccination coverage compared with non-Hispanic White (White) persons. This report examines influenza hospitalization and vaccination rates by race and ethnicity during a 12-13-year period (through the 2021-22 influenza season).Data from population-based surveillance for laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations in selected states participating in the Influenza-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET) from the 2009-10 through 2021-22 influenza seasons (excluding 2020-21) and influenza vaccination coverage data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) from the 2010-11 through 2021-22 influenza seasons were analyzed by race and ethnicity.From 2009-10 through 2021-22, age-adjusted influenza hospitalization rates (hospitalizations per 100,000 population) were higher among non-Hispanic Black (Black) (rate ratio [RR] = 1.8), American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN; RR = 1.3), and Hispanic (RR = 1.2) adults, compared with the rate among White adults. During the 2021-22 season, influenza vaccination coverage was lower among Hispanic (37.9%), AI/AN (40.9%), Black (42.0%), and other/multiple race (42.6%) adults compared with that among White (53.9%) and non-Hispanic Asian (Asian) (54.2%) adults; coverage has been consistently higher among White and Asian adults compared with that among Black and Hispanic adults since the 2010-11 season. The disparity in vaccination coverage by race and ethnicity was present among those who reported having medical insurance, a personal health care provider, and a routine medical checkup in the past year.Racial and ethnic disparities in influenza disease severity and influenza vaccination coverage persist. Health care providers should assess patient vaccination status at all medical visits and offer (or provide a referral for) all recommended vaccines. Tailored programmatic efforts to provide influenza vaccination through nontraditional settings, along with national and community-level efforts to improve awareness of the importance of influenza vaccination in preventing illness, hospitalization, and death among racial and ethnic minority communities might help address health care access barriers and improve vaccine confidence, leading to decreases in disparities in influenza vaccination coverage and disease severity.

Pregnant and postpartum women are at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19. We assessed COVID-19 vaccination coverage, intent, and attitudes among women of reproductive age overall and by pregnancy status in the United States.Data from the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module collected during April 22-November 27, 2021, were analyzed to assess COVID-19 vaccination (receipt of ≥1 dose), intent for vaccination, and attitudes towards vaccination among women aged 18-49 years overall and by pregnancy status (trying to get pregnant, currently pregnant, breastfeeding, and not trying to get pregnant or currently pregnant or breastfeeding). Logistic regression and predictive marginals were used to generate unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs and aPRs). Trend analyses were conducted to assess monthly changes in vaccination and intent.Our analyses included 110,925 women aged 18-49 years. COVID-19 vaccination coverage (≥1 dose) was 63.2% overall (range from 53.3% in HHS Region 4 to 76.5% in HHS Region 1). Vaccination coverage was lowest among pregnant women (45.1%), followed by women who were trying to get pregnant (49.5%), women who were breastfeeding (51.5%), and all other women (64.9%). Non-Hispanic (NH) Black women who were pregnant or breastfeeding had significantly lower vaccination coverage (aPR: 0.74 and 0.66, respectively) than NH White women.Our findings are consistent with other studies showing lower vaccination coverage among pregnant individuals, with substantially lower vaccination coverage among NH Black women who are pregnant or breastfeeding. Given the overlapping and disproportionate risks of COVID-19 and maternal mortality among Black women, it is critical that COVID-19 vaccination be strongly recommended for these populations and all women of reproductive age. Healthcare and public health providers may take advantage of every opportunity to encourage vaccination and enlist the assistance of community leaders, particularly in communities with low vaccination coverage.

Ensuring access to contraceptive services is an important strategy for preventing unintended pregnancies, which account for nearly one half of all U.S. pregnancies (1) and are associated with adverse maternal and infant health outcomes (2). Equitable, person-centered contraceptive access is also important to ensure reproductive autonomy (3). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data collected during 2017-2019 were used to estimate the proportion of women aged 18-49 years who were at risk for unintended pregnancy* and had ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services.† During 2017-2019, in the 45 jurisdictions§ from which data were collected, 76.2% of women aged 18-49 years were considered to be at risk for unintended pregnancy, ranging from 67.0% (Alaska) to 84.6% (Georgia); 60.7% of women had ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services, ranging from 45.3% (Puerto Rico) to 73.7% (New York). For all jurisdictions combined, the proportion of women who were at risk for unintended pregnancy and had ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services varied significantly by age group, race/ethnicity, and urban-rural status. Among women with ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services, 15.2% used a long-acting reversible method (intrauterine device or contraceptive implant), 25.0% used a short-acting reversible method (injectable, pill, transdermal patch, or vaginal ring), and 29.5% used a barrier or other reversible method (diaphragm, condom, withdrawal, cervical cap, sponge, spermicide, fertility-awareness-based method, or emergency contraception). In addition, 30.3% of women with ongoing or potential need were not using any method of contraception. Data in this report can be used to help guide jurisdictional planning to deliver contraceptive services, reduce unintended pregnancies, ensure that the contraceptive needs of women and their partners are met, and evaluate efforts to increase access to contraception.

On March 13, 2020, the United States declared a national emergency concerning the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak (1). In response, many state and local governments issued shelter-in-place or stay-at-home orders, restricting nonessential activities outside residents' homes (2). CDC initially issued guidance recommending postponing routine adult vaccinations, which was later revised to recommend continuing to administer routine adult vaccines (3). In addition, factors such as disrupted operations of health care facilities and safety concerns regarding exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, resulted in delay or avoidance of routine medical care (4), likely further affecting delivery of routine adult vaccinations. Medicare enrollment and claims data of Parts A (hospital insurance), B (medical insurance), and D (prescription drug insurance) were examined to assess the change in receipt of routine adult vaccines during the pandemic. Weekly receipt of four vaccines (13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine [PCV13], 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine [PPSV23], tetanus-diphtheria or tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine [Td/Tdap], and recombinant zoster vaccine [RZV]) by Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years during January 5-July 18, 2020, was compared with that during January 6-July 20, 2019, for the total study sample and by race and ethnicity. Overall, weekly administration rates of the four examined vaccines declined by up to 89% after the national emergency declaration in mid-March (1) compared with those during the corresponding period in 2019. During the first week following the national emergency declaration, the weekly vaccination rates were 25%-62% lower than those during the corresponding week in 2019. After reaching their nadirs of 70%-89% below 2019 rates in the second to third week of April 2020, weekly vaccination rates gradually began to recover through mid-July, but by the last study week were still lower than were those during the corresponding period in 2019, with the exception of PPSV23. Vaccination declined sharply for all vaccines studied, overall and across all racial and ethnic groups. While the pandemic continues, vaccination providers should emphasize to patients the importance of continuing to receive routine vaccinations and provide reassurance by explaining the procedures in place to ensure patient safety (3).

Summary Background Since August, 2019, US public health officials have been investigating a national outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI). A spectrum of histological patterns consistent with acute to subacute lung injury has been seen in biopsies; however, autopsy findings have not been systematically characterised. We describe the pathological findings in autopsy and biopsy tissues submitted to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the evaluation of suspected EVALI. Methods Between Aug 1, 2019, and Nov 30, 2019, we examined lung biopsy (n=10 individuals) and autopsy (n=13 individuals) tissue samples received by the CDC, submitted by 16 US states, from individuals with: a history of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use; respiratory, gastrointestinal, or constitutional symptoms; and either pulmonary infiltrates or opacities on chest imaging, or sudden death from an undetermined cause. We also reviewed medical records, evaluated histopathology, and performed infectious disease testing when indicated by histopathology and clinical history. Findings 21 cases met surveillance case definitions for EVALI, with a further two cases of clinically suspected EVALI evaluated. All ten lung biopsies showed histological evidence of acute to subacute lung injury, including diffuse alveolar damage or organising pneumonia. These patterns were also seen in nine of 13 (69%) autopsy cases, most frequently diffuse alveolar damage (eight autopsies), but also acute and organising fibrinous pneumonia (one autopsy). Additional pulmonary pathology not necessarily consistent with EVALI was seen in the remaining autopsies, including bronchopneumonia, bronchoaspiration, and chronic interstitial lung disease. Three of the five autopsy cases with no evidence of, or a plausible alternative cause for acute lung injury, had been classified as confirmed or probable EVALI according to surveillance case definitions. Interpretation Acute to subacute lung injury patterns were seen in all ten biopsies and most autopsy lung tissues from individuals with suspected EVALI. Acute to subacute lung injury can have numerous causes; however, if it is identified in an individual with a history of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use, and no alternative cause is apparent, a diagnosis of EVALI should be strongly considered. A review of autopsy tissue pathology in suspected EVALI deaths can also identify alternative diagnoses, which can enhance the specificity of public health surveillance efforts. Funding US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Problem/Condition CDC conducts abortion surveillance to document the number and characteristics of women obtaining legal induced abortions and number of abortion-related deaths in the United States. Period Covered 2018. Description of System Each year, CDC requests abortion data from the central health agencies for 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City. For 2018, 49 reporting areas voluntarily provided aggregate abortion data to CDC. Of these, 48 reporting areas provided data each year during 2009–2018. Census and natality data were used to calculate abortion rates (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratios (number of abortions per 1,000 live births), respectively. Abortion-related deaths from 2017 were assessed as part of CDC’s Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System (PMSS). Results A total of 619,591 abortions for 2018 were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. Among 48 reporting areas with data each year during 2009–2018, in 2018, a total of 614,820 abortions were reported, the abortion rate was 11.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 189 abortions per 1,000 live births. From 2017 to 2018, the total number of abortions and abortion rate increased 1% (from 609,095 total abortions and from 11.2 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, respectively), and the abortion ratio increased 2% (from 185 abortions per 1,000 live births). From 2009 to 2018, the total number of reported abortions, abortion rate, and abortion ratio decreased 22% (from 786,621), 24% (from 14.9 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years), and 16% (from 224 abortions per 1,000 live births), respectively. In 2018, women in their 20s accounted for more than half of abortions (57.7%). In 2018 and during 2009–2018, women aged 20–24 and 25–29 years accounted for the highest percentages of abortions; in 2018, they accounted for 28.3% and 29.4% of abortions, respectively, and had the highest abortion rates (19.1 and 18.5 per 1,000 women aged 20–24 and 25–29 years, respectively). By contrast, adolescents aged 13 weeks’ gestation remained consistently low (≤9.0%). In 2018, the highest proportion of abortions were performed by surgical abortion at ≤13 weeks’ gestation (52.1%), followed by early medical abortion at ≤9 weeks’ gestation (38.6%), surgical abortion at >13 weeks’ gestation (7.8%), and medical abortion at >9 weeks’ gestation (1.4%); all other methods were uncommon (

Vaccination of pregnant women with influenza vaccine and tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) can decrease the risk for influenza and pertussis among pregnant women and their infants. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that all women who are or might be pregnant during the influenza season receive influenza vaccine, which can be administered at any time during pregnancy (1). ACIP also recommends that women receive Tdap during each pregnancy, preferably during the early part of gestational weeks 27-36 (2,3). Despite these recommendations, vaccination coverage among pregnant women has been found to be suboptimal with racial/ethnic disparities persisting (4-6). To assess influenza and Tdap vaccination coverage among women pregnant during the 2019-20 influenza season, CDC analyzed data from an Internet panel survey conducted during April 2020. Among 1,841 survey respondents who were pregnant anytime during October 2019-January 2020, 61.2% reported receiving influenza vaccine before or during their pregnancy, an increase of 7.5 percentage points compared with the rate during the 2018-19 season. Among 463 respondents who had a live birth by their survey date, 56.6% reported receiving Tdap during pregnancy, similar to the 2018-19 season (4). Vaccination coverage was highest among women who reported receiving a provider offer or referral for vaccination (influenza = 75.2%; Tdap = 72.7%). Compared with the 2018-19 season, increases in influenza vaccination coverage were observed during the 2019-20 season for non-Hispanic Black (Black) women (14.7 percentage points, to 52.7%), Hispanic women (9.9 percentage points, to 67.2%), and women of other non-Hispanic (other) races (7.9 percentage points, to 69.6%), and did not change for non-Hispanic White (White) women (60.6%). As in the 2018-19 season, Hispanic and Black women had the lowest Tdap vaccination coverage (35.8% and 38.8%, respectively), compared with White women (65.5%) and women of other races (54.0%); in addition, a decrease in Tdap vaccination coverage was observed among Hispanic women in 2019-20 compared with the previous season. Racial/ethnic disparities in influenza vaccination coverage decreased but persisted, even among women who received a provider offer or referral for vaccination. Consistent provider offers or referrals, in combination with conversations culturally and linguistically tailored for patients of all races/ethnicities, could increase vaccination coverage among pregnant women in all racial/ethnic groups and reduce disparities in coverage.

Since 1969, CDC has conducted abortion surveillance to document the number and characteristics of women obtaining legal induced abortions in the United States.2016.Each year, CDC requests abortion data from the central health agencies of 52 reporting areas (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City). The reporting areas provide this information voluntarily. For 2016, data were received from 48 reporting areas. Abortion data provided by these 48 reporting areas for each year during 2007-2016 were used in trend analyses. Census and natality data were used to calculate abortion rates (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years) and ratios (number of abortions per 1,000 live births), respectively.A total of 623,471 abortions for 2016 were reported to CDC from 48 reporting areas. Among these 48 reporting areas, the abortion rate for 2016 was 11.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years, and the abortion ratio was 186 abortions per 1,000 live births. From 2015 to 2016, the total number of reported abortions decreased 2% (from 636,902), the abortion rate decreased 2% (from 11.8 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years), and the abortion ratio decreased 1% (from 188 abortions per 1,000 live births). From 2007 to 2016, the total number of reported abortions decreased 24% (from 825,240), the abortion rate decreased 26% (from 15.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years), and the abortion ratio decreased 18% (from 226 abortions per 1,000 live births). In 2016, all three measures reached their lowest level for the entire period of analysis (2007-2016). In 2016 and throughout the period of analysis, women in their 20s accounted for the majority of abortions and had the highest abortion rates. In 2016, women aged 20-24 and 25-29 years accounted for 30.0% and 28.5% of all reported abortions, respectively, and had abortion rates of 19.1 and 17.8 abortions per 1,000 women aged 20-24 and 25-29 years, respectively. By contrast, women aged 30-34, 35-39, and ≥40 years accounted for 18.0%, 10.3%, and 3.5% of all reported abortions, respectively, and had abortion rates of 11.6, 6.9, and 2.5 abortions per 1,000 women aged 30-34, 35-39, and ≥40 years, respectively. From 2007 to 2016, the abortion rate decreased among women in all age groups. In 2016, adolescents aged15 and 15-19 years accounted for 0.3% and 9.4% of all reported abortions, respectively, and had abortion rates of 0.4 and 6.2 abortions per 1,000 adolescents aged15 and 15-19 years, respectively. From 2007 to 2016, the percentage of abortions accounted for by adolescents aged 15-19 years decreased 43%, and the abortion rate decreased 56%. This decrease in abortion rate was greater than the decreases for women in any older age group. In contrast to the percentage distribution of abortions and abortion rates by age, abortion ratios in 2016 and throughout the entire period of analysis were highest among adolescents and lowest among women aged 25-39 years. Abortion ratios decreased from 2007 to 2016 for women in all age groups. In 2016, almost two-thirds (65.5%) of abortions were performed at ≤8 weeks' gestation, and nearly all (91.0%) were performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation. Fewer abortions were performed between 14 and 20 weeks' gestation (7.7%) or at ≥21 weeks' gestation (1.2%). During 2007-2016, the percentage of abortions performed at13 weeks' gestation remained consistently low (8.2%-9.0%). Among abortions performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation, the percentage distributions of abortions by gestational age were highest among those performed at ≤6 weeks' gestation (35.0%-38.4%). In 2016, 27.9% of all abortions were performed by early medical abortion (a nonsurgical abortion at ≤8 weeks' gestation), 59.9% were performed by surgical abortion at ≤13 weeks' gestation, 8.8% were performed by surgical abortion at13 weeks' gestation, and 3.4% were performed by medical abortion at8 weeks' gestation; all other methods were uncommon (0.1%). Among those that were eligible for early medical abortion on the basis of gestational age (i.e., performed at ≤8 weeks' gestation), 41.9% were completed by this method. In 2016, women with one or more previous live births accounted for 59.0% of abortions, and women with no previous live births accounted for 41.0%. Women with one or more previous induced abortions accounted for 43.1% of abortions, and women with no previous abortions accounted for 56.9%. Deaths of women associated with complications from abortion are assessed as part of CDC's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System. In 2015, the most recent year for which data were reviewed for abortion-related deaths, two women were identified to have died as a result of complications from legal induced abortion and for one additional death, it was unknown whether the abortion was induced or spontaneous.Among the 48 areas that reported data every year during 2007-2016, decreases in the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions resulted in historic lows for the period of analysis for all three measures of abortion.The data in this report can help program planners and policymakers identify groups of women with the highest rates of abortion. Unintended pregnancy is the major contributor to induced abortion. Increasing access to and use of effective contraception can reduce unintended pregnancies and further reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States.

CDC, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), state and local health departments, and public health and clinical stakeholders are investigating a nationwide outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) (1). As of November 13, 2019, 49 states, the District of Columbia, and two U.S. territories (Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands) have reported 2,172 EVALI cases to CDC, including 42 (1.9%) EVALI-associated deaths. To inform EVALI surveillance, including during the 2019-20 influenza season, case report information supplied by states for hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients with EVALI were analyzed using data collected as of November 5, 2019. Among 2,016 EVALI patients with available data on hospitalization status, 1,906 (95%) were hospitalized, and 110 (5%) were not hospitalized. Demographic characteristics of hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients were similar; most were male (68% of hospitalized versus 65% of nonhospitalized patients), and most were aged

Objective(s) We estimated the prevalence of requiring specific examinations or tests before providing contraception in a nationwide survey of family planning providers. Study Design We conducted a cross-sectional survey of public-sector health centers and office-based physicians providing family planning services across the United States in 2019 (n = 1395). We estimated the weighted proportion of providers (or their health center or practice) who required blood pressure measurement, pelvic examination (bimanual examination and cervical inspection), Papanicolaou (Pap) smear, clinical breast examination (CBE), and chlamydia and gonorrhea (CT/GC) screening before initiating hormonal or intrauterine contraception (IUC) for healthy women. We performed multivariable regression to identify factors associated with pelvic examination practices aligned with clinical recommendations; these recommendations classify examinations and tests as recommended or unnecessary before initiation of specific contraceptive methods. Results The overall response rate was 51%. Most providers required blood pressure measurement before initiating each method. Unnecessary CBE, Pap smears, and CT/GC screening were required by 14% to 33% of providers across methods. Fifty-two to 62% of providers required recommended pelvic examination before IUC placement; however, 16% to 23% of providers required unnecessary pelvic examinations before non-intrauterine hormonal method initiation. Factors associated with recommendation-aligned pelvic examination practices included having a higher proportion of patients using public funding (Medicaid or other assistance) and more recently completing formal clinical training. Conclusions Almost half (47%) of providers did not require necessary pelvic examination before placing IUC. Conversely, many providers required unnecessary examinations and tests before contraception initiation for patients. Implications Most providers required the few recommended examinations and tests for safe contraceptive provision. Reduction of unnecessary examinations and tests may reduce barriers to contraceptive access. There are also opportunities to increase use of recommended examinations, as up to 48% of providers did not require recommended pelvic examination before IUC.

Problem/Condition Since 1969, CDC has conducted abortion surveillance to document the number and characteristics of women obtaining legal induced abortions in the United States. Period Covered 2015. Description of System Each year, CDC requests abortion data from the central health agencies of 52 reporting areas (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City). The reporting areas provide this information voluntarily. For 2015, data were received from 49 reporting areas. Abortion data provided by these 49 reporting areas for each year during 2006–2015 were used in trend analyses. Census and natality data were used to calculate abortion rates (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratios (number of abortions per 1,000 live births), respectively. Results A total of 638,169 abortions for 2015 were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. Among these 49 reporting areas, the abortion rate for 2015 was 11.8 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 188 abortions per 1,000 live births. From 2014 to 2015, the total number of reported abortions decreased 2% (from 652,639), the abortion rate decreased 2% (from 12.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years), and the abortion ratio decreased 2% (from 192 abortions per 1,000 live births). From 2006 to 2015, the total number of reported abortions decreased 24% (from 842,855), the abortion rate decreased 26% (from 15.9 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years), and the abortion ratio decreased 19% (from 233 abortions per 1,000 live births). In 2015, all three measures reached their lowest level for the entire period of analysis (2006–2015). In 2015 and throughout the period of analysis, women in their 20s accounted for the majority of abortions and had the highest abortion rates; women aged ≥30 years accounted for a smaller percentage of abortions and had lower abortion rates. In 2015, women aged 20–24 and 25–29 years accounted for 31.1% and 27.6% of all reported abortions, respectively, and had abortion rates of 19.9 and 17.9 abortions per 1,000 women aged 20–24 and 25–29 years, respectively. In contrast, women aged 30–34, 35–39, and ≥40 years accounted for 17.7%, 10.0%, and 3.5% of all reported abortions, respectively, and had abortion rates of 11.6, 7.0, and 2.5 abortions per 1,000 women aged 30–34, 35–39, and ≥40 years, respectively. From 2006 to 2015, the abortion rate decreased among women in all age groups. In 2015, adolescents aged 13 weeks’ gestation remained consistently low (≤9.0%). Among abortions performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation, a shift occurred toward earlier gestational ages, with the percentage performed at ≤6 weeks’ gestation increasing 11%. In 2015, 24.6% of all abortions were performed by early medical abortion (a nonsurgical abortion at ≤8 weeks’ gestation), 64.3% were performed by surgical abortion at ≤13 weeks’ gestation, and 8.8% were performed by surgical abortion at >13 weeks’ gestation; all other methods were uncommon (≤2.2%). Among those that were eligible for early medical abortion on the basis of gestational age (i.e., performed at ≤8 weeks’ gestation), 35.8% were completed by this method. In 2015, women with one or more previous live births accounted for 59.3% of abortions, and women with no previous live births accounted for 40.7%. Women with one or more previous induced abortions accounted for 43.6% of abortions, and women with no previous abortion accounted for 56.3%. Women with three or more previous births accounted for 14.2% of abortions, and women with three or more previous abortions accounted for 8.2% of abortions. Deaths of women associated with complications from abortion for 2015 are being assessed as part of CDC’s Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System. In 2014, the most recent year for which data were available, six women were identified to have died as a result of complications from legal induced abortion. Interpretation Among the 49 areas that reported data every year during 2006–2015, decreases in the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions resulted in historic lows for the period of analysis for all three measures of abortion. Public Health Action The data in this report can help program planners and policymakers identify groups of women with the highest rates of abortion. Unintended pregnancy is the major contributor to induced abortion. Increasing access to and use of effective contraception can reduce unintended pregnancies and further reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate expulsion rates among women with postpartum intrauterine device (IUD) placement by timing of insertion, IUD type, and delivery method. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 1974 to May 2018. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We searched databases for any published studies that examined post-partum placement of a copper IUD or levonorgestrel intrauterine system and reported counts of expulsions. We assessed study quality using the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force evidence grading system. We calculated pooled absolute rates of IUD expulsion and estimated adjusted relative risks (RRs) for timing of postpartum placement, delivery method, and IUD type using log-binomial multivariable regression model. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: We identified 48 level I to II-3 studies of poor to good quality. Pooled rates of expulsion varied by timing of IUD placement, ranging from 1.9% with interval placements (4 weeks postpartum or greater), 10.0% for immediate placements (10 minutes or less after placental delivery), and 29.7% for early placements (greater than 10 minutes to less than 4 weeks postpartum). Immediate and early postpartum placements were associated with increased risk of expulsion compared with interval placement (adjusted RR 7.63, 95% CI 4.31–13.51; adjusted RR 6.17, 95% CI 3.19–11.93, respectively). Postpartum placement less than 4 weeks after vaginal delivery was associated with an increased risk of expulsion compared with cesarean delivery (adjusted RR 5.19, 95% CI 3.85–6.99). Analysis of expulsion rates at less than 4 weeks postpartum also indicated that the levonorgestrel intrauterine system was associated with a higher risk of expulsion (adjusted RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.50–2.43) compared with CuT380A. CONCLUSION: Postpartum IUD expulsion rates vary by timing of placement, delivery method, and IUD type. These results can aid in counseling women to make an informed choice about when to initiate their IUD and to help institutions implement postpartum contraception programs.

Problem/Condition Since 1969, CDC has conducted abortion surveillance to document the number and characteristics of women obtaining legal induced abortions in the United States. Period Covered 2014. Description of System Each year, CDC requests abortion data from the central health agencies of 52 reporting areas (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City). The reporting areas provide this information voluntarily. For 2014, data were received from 49 reporting areas. For trend analysis, abortion data were evaluated from 48 areas that reported data every year during 2005–2014. Census and natality data, respectively, were used to calculate abortion rates (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratios (number of abortions per 1,000 live births). Results A total of 652,639 abortions were reported to CDC for 2014. Of these abortions, 98.4% were from the 48 reporting areas that provided data every year during 2005–2014. Among these 48 reporting areas, the abortion rate for 2014 was 12.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 193 abortions per 1,000 live births. From 2013 to 2014, the total number and rate of reported abortions decreased 2%, and the ratio decreased 3%. From 2005 to 2014, the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 21%, 22%, and 18%, respectively. In 2014, all three measures reached their lowest level for the entire period of analysis (2005–2014). In 2014 and throughout the period of analysis, women in their 20s accounted for the majority of abortions and had the highest abortion rates; women in their 30s and older accounted for a much smaller percentage of abortions and had lower abortion rates. In 2014, women aged 20–24 and 25–29 years accounted for 32.2% and 26.7% of all reported abortions, respectively, and had abortion rates of 21.3 and 18.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 20–24 and 25–29 years, respectively. In contrast, women aged 30–34, 35–39, and ≥40 years accounted for 17.1%, 9.7%, and 3.6% of all reported abortions, respectively, and had abortion rates of 11.9, 7.2, and 2.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 30–34 years, 35–39 years, and ≥40 years, respectively. From 2005 to 2014, the abortion rate decreased among women aged 20–24, 25–29, 30–34, and 35–39 years by 27%, 16%, 12%, and 5%, respectively, but increased 4% among women aged ≥40 years. In 2014, adolescents aged 13 weeks’ gestation; all other methods were uncommon (

Objective The objective was to assess risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) among women with current asymptomatic undiagnosed cervical infection or who are at high risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), comparing those who have a copper-bearing (Cu-) or levonorgestrel (LNG-) intrauterine device (IUD) placed with women who do not. Study design We searched PubMed and Cochrane Library for articles from January 1984 through January 2016 addressing our objective. We assessed study quality using the United States Preventive Services Task Force evidence grading system. Results Our search strategy yielded 2220 articles, of which 10 met inclusion criteria. Two studies provided direct evidence of PID rates in women with undiagnosed gonococcal or chlamydial (GC/CT) infection or at high risk for STIs initiating IUDs versus other contraceptive methods (level II-2, fair to poor), and neither study found a difference. Eight studies provided indirect evidence (II-2 to II-3, fair to poor). One study found no difference in PID rates between initiators of Cu- versus LNG-IUDs. Five studies compared algorithms based on patient factors with laboratory GC/CT screening to predict cervical infection. Based on likelihood ratios, none of these algorithms adequately identified women at high risk of asymptomatic cervical infection who should not undergo IUD placement. Two studies compared IUD placement on the same day as STI screening with delayed placement after screening and found no difference in PID rates. Conclusion Limited evidence suggests that IUD placement does not increase the risk of PID compared with no IUD placement among women with asymptomatic undiagnosed cervical infection or at high risk of STIs. Algorithms based on patient characteristics to identify women with asymptomatic GC/CT may be overly restrictive, leading to missed opportunities for IUD initiation. Historical concerns about higher PID risk among women at risk for STIs who use IUDs may not be relevant with modern devices and STI screening and treatment practices.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine whether emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) are less safe and effective for women with obesity compared with those without obesity. STUDY DESIGN: We searched PubMed for articles through November 2015 regarding the safety and effectiveness of ECPs [ulipristal acetate (UPA), levonorgestrel (LNG) and combined estrogen and progestin] among obese users. We assessed study quality using the United States Preventive Services Task Force evidence grading system. RESULTS: We identified four pooled secondary analyses (quality: poor to fair), two of which examined UPA and three examined LNG formulations. Three analyses pooled overlapping data from a total of three primary studies and demonstrated significant associations between obesity and risk of pregnancy after ECP use. One analysis reported a 4-fold increased risk of pregnancy among women with obesity (BMI≥30 kg/m(2)) compared with women within normal/underweight categories (BMI

Background Potential barriers to intrauterine device (IUD) use include provider concern about difficult insertion, particularly for nulliparous women. Objective This study aims to evaluate the evidence on the effectiveness of medications to ease IUD insertion on provider outcomes (i.e., ease of insertion, need for adjunctive insertion measures, insertion success). Search strategy We searched the PubMed database for peer-reviewed articles published in any language from database inception through February 2016. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined medications to ease interval insertion of levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs and copper T IUDs. Results From 1855 articles, we identified 15 RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. Most evidence suggested that misoprostol did not improve provider ease of insertion, reduce the need for adjunctive insertion measures or improve insertion success among general samples of women seeking an IUD (evidence Level I, good to fair). However, one RCT found significantly higher insertion success among women receiving misoprostol prior to a second IUD insertion attempt after failed attempt versus placebo (evidence Level I, good). Two RCTs on 2% intracervical lidocaine as a topical gel or injection suggested no positive effect on provider ease of insertion (evidence Level I, good to poor), and one RCT on diclofenac plus 2% intracervical lidocaine as a topical gel suggested no positive effect on provider ease of insertion (evidence Level I, good). Limited evidence from two RCTs on nitric oxide donors, specifically nitroprusside or nitroglycerin gel, suggested no positive effect on provider ease of insertion or need for adjunctive insertion measures (evidence Level I, fair). Conclusions Overall, most studies found no significant differences between women receiving interventions to ease IUD insertion versus controls. Among women with a recent failed insertion who underwent a second insertion attempt, one RCT found improved insertion success among women using misoprostol versus placebo.

ObjectivesTo provide updated and more detailed pooled intrauterine device expulsion rates and expulsion risk estimates among women with postpartum intrauterine device placement by timing of insertion, delivery type, and intrauterine device type to inform current intrauterine device insertion practices in the United States.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through June2019.Study eligibility criteriaWe included all studies, of any study design, that examined postpartum placement of Copper T380A (copper) or levonorgestrel-containing intrauterine devices that reported counts of expulsion.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsWe evaluated intrauterine device expulsion among women receiving postpartum intrauterine devices in the "immediate" (within 10 minutes), "early inpatient" (>10 minutes to

Background Clinical practice guidelines that recommend women avoid pregnancy immediately after bariatric surgery, highlighting the need for effective contraception. However, women with a history of malabsorptive bariatric procedures should generally not use oral contraceptives, as these procedures may decrease oral contraceptive effectiveness. Objectives To identify provider characteristics associated with knowledge of combined oral contraceptive (COC) effectiveness. Setting United States. Methods We analyzed weighted survey data collected from national samples of public-sector health centers and office-based physicians who regularly provide family planning services (N = 2060). We asked providers about the effectiveness of COCs for women with a history of malabsorptive procedures compared with healthy women, giving them the response options of more/equally effective, less effective, and do not know. We used multinomial logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals to identify characteristics associated with knowledge of COC effectiveness. Results Approximately 55% of providers correctly answered that COCs are less effective for women with malabsorptive procedures; 25% considered COCs more/equally effective, and 20% were uncertain. Among public-sector providers, the adjusted odds of uncertainty were significantly higher for those whose clinical focus was not reproductive health, for nurses versus advanced practice clinicians, and for providers working in clinics without Title X funding. For office-based physicians, adolescent medicine providers had higher odds of uncertainty versus obstetrician-gynecologists. Physicians practicing in settings classified as “other” (such as community health centers) had higher odds of considering COCs effective compared with those practicing in hospital or university clinics. Conclusions Substantial proportions of surveyed providers had inadequate knowledge of COC effectiveness for women with a history of malabsorptive procedures.

Since 1969, CDC has conducted abortion surveillance to document the number and characteristics of women obtaining legal induced abortions in the United States.

The 2016 U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (U.S. SPR) addresses a select group of common, yet sometimes controversial or complex, issues regarding initiation and use of specific contraceptive methods. These recommendations for health care providers were updated by CDC after review of the scientific evidence and consultation with national experts who met in Atlanta, Georgia, during August 26-28, 2015. The information in this report updates the 2013 U.S. SPR (CDC. U.S. selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2013. MMWR 2013;62[No. RR-5]). Major updates include 1) revised recommendations for starting regular contraception after the use of emergency contraceptive pills and 2) new recommendations for the use of medications to ease insertion of intrauterine devices. The recommendations in this report are intended to serve as a source of clinical guidance for health care providers and provide evidence-based guidance to reduce medical barriers to contraception access and use. Health care providers should always consider the individual clinical circumstances of each person seeking family planning services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice for individual patients. Persons should seek advice from their health care providers when considering family planning options.

Objective This survey aimed to identify the family planning knowledge, attitudes and practices of bariatric providers in the perioperative period. Study design We developed a quantitative survey based on semistructured interviews with six bariatric providers. We mailed the survey to the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery members with plans to use data from the first 275 responders to assess knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding family planning. Results Over 70% of 272 respondents recommended that women avoid pregnancy for 12–24 months after bariatric procedures. Most (73.0%) considered female reproductive health discussions very important, and most feel comfortable (70.4%) with these discussions. The majority considered the most effective contraceptive methods to be safe for women after gastric bypass; only a minority (35.3%) provided contraceptive services or referrals, and few (4.9%) have accurate knowledge of contraceptive effectiveness. Respondents most frequently preferred the patient's own gynecologist (80.9%) or bariatric surgeon (71.0%) discuss contraception. Discussing contraception was associated with provider age 40–49 years, training region in southeast or midwest and degrees of physician assistant or nurse practitioner with adjusted odds ratios exceeding 2.0. Conclusion Bariatric providers consider reproductive health very important, and while most are comfortable having these conversations, few have accurate knowledge of contraceptive safety and effectiveness. Most would prefer patients see their gynecologists to discuss contraception. These findings suggest an opportunity for gynecologists to educate themselves and bariatric colleagues about contraception recommendations after bariatric surgery and collaborate with bariatric centers in their area to meet the needs of these patients. Implications Gynecologists must become educated and involved in the care of female bariatric patients to discuss reproductive health concerns and to counsel effectively regarding contraception after bariatric surgery.

Background As countries continue to improve their family planning (FP) programmes, they may draw on WHO’s evidence-based FP guidance and tools (i.e. materials) that support the provision of quality FP services. Methods To better understand the use and perceived impact of the materials and ways to strengthen their use by countries, we conducted qualitative interviews with WHO regional advisors, and with stakeholders in Ethiopia and Senegal who use WHO materials. Results WHO uses a multi-faceted strategy to directly and indirectly disseminate materials to country-level decision-makers. The materials are used to develop national family planning guidelines, protocols and training curricula. Participants reported that they trust the WHO materials because they are evidence based, and that they adapt materials to the country context (e.g. remove content on methods not available in the country). The main barrier to the use of national materials is resource constraints. Conclusions Although the system and processes for dissemination work, improvements might contribute to increased use of the materials. For example, providers may benefit from additional guidance on how to counsel women with characteristics or medical conditions where contraceptive method eligibility criteria do not clearly rule in or rule out a method.

BACKGROUND: Whether providers who regularly provide family planning services consider contraceptive methods as unsafe for women with obesity is unknown. METHODS: We analyzed questionnaire responses received from December 2009 to March 2010 from 635 office-based physicians and 1323 Title X clinic providers delivering family planning services, who were randomly sampled (response rate 65%) before the release of national evidence-based contraception guidelines. We examined provider and clinical setting characteristics and clinic patient demographics for association with provider misconceptions about safety of combined oral contraceptives (COCs), depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), or intrauterine devices (IUDs) for women with obesity. If providers considered methods as unsafe or do not know, we categorized those responses as misconceptions. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A substantial proportion of respondents had misconceptions about the safety of COCs (31%), DMPA (24%), copper (Cu) (18%), and levonorgestrel (LNG)-IUDs (16%) for women with obesity. Provider type was associated with increased odds of misconceptions for all four methods compared with office-based obstetrician/gynecologists. Not having the method available onsite was associated with safety misconceptions of DMPA (aOR 1.90, 95% CI 1.07–3.36), Cu-IUD (aOR 4.19, 95% CI 1.51–11.61), and LNG-IUD (aOR 5.25, 95% CI 1.67–16.49). CONCLUSION: While the majority of providers considered all four contraceptive methods safe for women with obesity, substantial proportions had misconceptions about safety of COCs, DMPA, and IUDs. Provider education, particularly among certain specialties, is needed to increase knowledge regarding moderate and highly effective contraceptive methods among this patient population.

Progress has been made in efforts to reduce unintended pregnancy; however, unintended pregnancy remains a public health issue in the United States. A key component of reducing unintended pregnancy is to increase correct and consistent use of contraception by reducing barriers to access and use. The CDC has recently updated its guidance for the safe and effective use of contraception. The U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (US MEC), 2016, and U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (US SPR), 2016, are intended for healthcare providers to help patients choose a method that is safe and can be used effectively. The recommendations aim to reduce certain barriers to contraception and thus help women, men, and couples to control timing of pregnancies.

Objective The objective was to determine the association between use of intrauterine devices (IUDs) by young women and risk of adverse outcomes. Methods We searched Pubmed, CINAHL, Embase, Popline and the Cochrane Library for articles from inception of database through December 2015. For outcomes specific to IUD use (IUD expulsion and perforation), we examined effect measures for IUD users generally aged 25 years or younger compared with older IUD users. For outcomes of pregnancy, infection, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), and heavy bleeding or anemia, we examined young IUD users compared with young users of other contraceptive methods or no method. Results We identified 3169 articles of which 16 articles from 14 studies met our inclusion criteria. Six studies (Level II-2, good to poor) reported increased risk of expulsion among younger age groups compared with older age groups using copper-bearing (Cu-) IUDs. Two studies (Level II-2, fair) examined risks of expulsion among younger compared with older women using levonorgestrel-releasing (LNG-) IUDs; one reported no difference in expulsion, while the other reported increased odds for younger women. Four studies (Level II-2, good to poor) examined risk of expulsion among Cu- and LNG-IUD users combined and reported no significant differences between younger and older women. For perforation, four studies (Level II-2, fair to poor) found very low perforation rates (range, 0%-0.1%), with no significant differences between younger and older women. Pregnancies were generally rare among young IUD users in nine studies (Level I to II-2, fair to poor), and no differences were reported for young IUD users compared with young combined oral contraceptive (COC) or etonogestrel (ENG) implant users. PID was rare among young IUD users; one study reported no cases among COC or IUD users, and one reported no difference in PID among LNG-IUD users compared with ENG implant users from nationwide insurance claims data (Level I to II-2, fair). One study reported decreased odds of bleeding with LNG-IUD compared with COC use among young women, while one study of young women reported decreased odds of removal for bleeding with LNG-IUD compared with ENG implant (Level I to II-2, fair). Conclusion Overall evidence suggests that the risk of adverse outcomes related to pregnancy, perforation, infection, heavy bleeding or removals for bleeding among young IUD users is low and may not be clinically meaningful. However, the risk of expulsion, especially for Cu-IUDs, is higher for younger women compared with older women. If IUD expulsion occurs, a young woman is exposed to an increased risk of unintended pregnancy if replacement contraception is not initiated. IUDs are safe for young women and provide highly effective reversible contraception.

Objectives To investigate levonorgestrel (LNG)-releasing and copper-bearing (Cu) intrauterine device (IUD) safety among breastfeeding women and, for Cu-IUD use, breastfeeding performance and infant health. Study design Systematic review. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov for articles through January 2016. We included studies of Cu-IUD or LNG-IUD users comparing IUD-specific (perforation, expulsion) and other contraceptive-related (infection, removal/cessation due to bleeding/pain and other adverse events) outcomes for breastfeeding vs. non-breastfeeding women. We also included studies of breastfeeding women comparing contraceptive-related outcome for IUD-users vs. other contraceptive-method users. Finally, we included studies comparing breastfeeding outcomes among Cu-IUD users to users of other nonhormonal contraceptives or no contraception. Results Of 548 articles identified, 23 (16 studies) met the inclusion criteria. Two studies suggested that the risk of IUD perforation was 6–10 times higher among breastfeeding vs. non-breastfeeding women. Seven studies suggested that risks for other adverse events were similar or lower among breastfeeding vs. non-breastfeeding women. Three studies among breastfeeding women found no increased risk of adverse events in IUD users vs. nonusers. Breastfeeding performance and infant growth were similar for Cu-IUD users and users of other nonhormonal methods or no contraception. Conclusion Overall, risks for adverse events among IUD users, including expulsion, pain and removals, were similar or lower for breastfeeding women vs. non-breastfeeding women. Uterine perforation with IUDs, while rare, appeared more frequent among breastfeeding women. No evidence indicated that Cu-IUD use in breastfeeding women influences breastfeeding performance or infant growth.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provide recommendations for use of emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs), including levonorgestrel (LNG) and combined oral contraceptives (COCs). A new ECP formulation, ulipristal acetate (UPA), is now available worldwide. To determine whether LNG, UPA or COC (Yuzpe) ECPs are safe for women with certain characteristics or medical conditions, we searched the PubMed and Cochrane databases for articles published from date of inception until May 2015 pertaining to the safety of LNG, UPA or Yuzpe ECP use. For direct evidence, we considered studies that looked at safety outcomes among women with certain medical conditions or characteristics taking ECPs compared with women not taking ECPs. For indirect evidence, we considered studies that reported pharmacokinetic (PK) data for ECP use among women with certain medical conditions or characteristics and studies that reported safety outcomes among healthy women taking ECPs. Five studies provided direct evidence; of these five studies, four examined LNG or Yuzpe use among pregnant or breastfeeding women, and one reported risk of ectopic pregnancy among women repeatedly using LNG ECPs. Poor pregnancy outcomes were rare among pregnant women who used LNG or Yuzpe ECPs during the conception cycle or early pregnancy. Breastfeeding outcomes did not differ between women exposed to LNG ECP and those unexposed, and there was no increased risk of ectopic pregnancy versus intrauterine pregnancy after repeated use of LNG ECPs compared with nonuse. Forty-five studies provided indirect evidence. One PK study demonstrated that LNG passes into breastmilk but in minimal quantities. In addition, nine studies examined pregnancy outcomes following ECP failure among healthy women, and 35 articles reported adverse events. Studies suggest that serious adverse events are rare among women taking any of these ECP formulations. Implications: Evidence on safety of ECPs among women with characteristics or medical conditions listed within WHO and CDC family planning guidance is limited. However, both direct and indirect evidence for our study question did not suggest any special safety concerns for the use of ECPs among women with particular medical conditions or personal characteristics, such as pregnancy, lactation or frequent ECP use. Published by Elsevier Inc.

INTRODUCTION: More than 100000 bariatric procedures are performed yearly in the United States. Women account for the majority of cases. Guidelines cosponsored by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists The Obesity Society and the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery recommend women avoid pregnancy preoperatively and 12-18 months after surgery. This survey aims to identify the family planning knowledge attitudes and practices of bariatric providers in the perioperative period. METHODS: We developed a quantitative survey from qualitative data of semistructured health care provider interviews and mailed it to American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery members. We collected data from a convenience sample of the first 275 responders to perform a descriptive analysis. RESULTS: A total of 272 participants consented to the study. More than 70% of respondents recommend women avoid pregnancy for 12-24 months after bariatric procedures. The majority considers the most effective contraceptive methods to be safe for women after gastric bypass; however the minority (35.3%) provides contraceptive services or referrals. Although most (73.0%) consider female reproductive health discussions very important the majority (70.4%) never or almost never feels comfortable with these discussions. Respondents most frequently prefer the patients own gynecologist (80.9%) and the bariatric surgeon (71.0%) discuss contraception. CONCLUSION: Bariatric providers consider reproductive health very important; however most are not comfortable having these conversations and would prefer patients see their gynecologists to discuss contraception. This is an opportunity for gynecologists to educate themselves and colleagues about contraception recommendations after bariatric surgery and collaborate with bariatric centers in their area to meet the needs of these patients.

Objective To determine whether postplacental intrauterine device (IUD) insertion can be safely and effectively performed within a teaching program. Study Design This was a prospective cohort of 177 subjects planning vaginal delivery enrolled antenatally who desired postplacental IUD insertion of either the copper T380A IUD or levonorgestrel IUS. Insertions were performed primarily by resident physicians following a training session. Follow-up included a 4- to 8-week visit and telephone calls at 3 and 6 months. Results Ninety-nine subjects underwent successful postplacental IUD insertion of 100 attempts. Seventeen expulsions (17%) were noted: 10 complete and 7 partial. The study identified no differences in outcome by training level; however, the study lacked statistical power to evaluate anything other than large differences. Conclusion Postplacental IUD insertions can be safely and effectively performed within a training program. Implications A training protocol may safely and feasibly be initiated among physicians, advanced practice clinicians or trainees with no prior experience with postplacental IUD insertion. By initiating this practice, access to highly effective contraception may increase for patients who have difficulty returning for a visit or otherwise receiving effective methods.

Universal access to safe and effective contraception is an important public health goal. Family planning and prevention of unintended pregnancy are essential to securing the well-being and autonomy of individuals while supporting the health and development of communities. The World Health Organization (WHO) recently undertook a process to update its global guidance on “who” can use contraception safely and “how” to use contraception safely and effectively to generate the fifth edition of the WHO Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (MEC) and the third edition of the WHO Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (SPR). Overall the MEC demonstrates that contraception is remarkably safe for most people; at least one highly effective contraceptive method is assigned a category “1” or “2” across the majority of conditions in the guidance indicating no restrictions on use or that the advantages of using a particular method generally outweigh the theoretical or proven risks of use. Once a medically appropriate method is identified the SPR offers critical guidance on safe and effective use important for contraceptive management and service delivery. The major goal for producing these evidence-based recommendations is to help improve access to and strengthen the quality of family planning services worldwide. While these recommendations reflect a rigorous synthesis and interpretation of the best evidence to date and contribute significantly to medical and public health knowledge around the world a number of recommendations in both the MEC and SPR are grounded in limited to no direct evidence. In the absence of direct evidence indirect evidence and expert opinion inform assessments. Each revision of the MEC and SPR offers an opportunity to identify current knowledge gaps and promote research necessary to continually strengthen the guidelines. As part of the most recent revision of these guidelines a Guideline Development Group convened in March and September 2014 to generate updated recommendations. During these meetings we identified a number of key research questions for a variety of topics discussed during the technical consultations. The full list of research gaps is included in Table 1 not further prioritized. However we present three important topics of global relevance to national programs and policies in greater detail: (a) intrauterine device (IUD) initiation among women at high risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs); (b) bidirectional drug-drug interactions with use of hormonal contraception (HC) and antiretroviral therapy (ART); and (c) initiation of progestogen-containing contraception following use of ulipristal acetate (UPA) emergency contraception. Each section presents some background on the public health importance of the topic and discusses the limitations of existing data and considerations for future rigorous research. [Excerpts].