ArticleContraception2022
Effectiveness of training primary care internal medicine residents in etonogestrel implants and impact on their future practice: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Contraception, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Expanding Access to Contraceptive Services in a Family Medicine Residency Clinic: The Rapid Access to Contraception Clinic Model.Family medicine · 2024Article
- Review of Publicly Available State Reimbursement Policies for Removal and Reinsertion of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception.Open access journal of contraception · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of an etonogestrel implant training program within a primary care Internal Medicine residency training program. STUDY
designWe surveyed graduates of our primary care Internal Medicine residency program in the Bronx, New York who performed implant procedures though the first 32 months after implementation of a monthly faculty-supervised resident implant clinic. We assessed the number of implants placed and removed per graduate, and surveyed graduates' satisfaction with the implant training program, perceived competence with implant procedures, and intent and ability to perform implant procedures and barriers to performing implant procedures postgraduation.
resultsBetween July 2017 and February 2020, 14 residents placed a total of 34 devices and removed four. All 14 program graduates completed the survey in August 2020. All but one respondent felt this training was valuable and 11 felt competent placing implants without supervision. Although 10 planned to provide implants following graduation, none have been able to, largely because of credentialing and clinic-practice level barriers.
conclusionsThe primary care Internal Medicine program graduates we surveyed (n = 14) valued our etonogestrel implant training program and perceived competence, particularly with implant placement. However, even those who intended to provide etonogestrel implants postgraduation were unable to do so. IMPLICATIONS: Internal Medicine residents trained to place and remove etonogestrel implants are most comfortable with implant placement. However, these physicians may face barriers related to credentialing and ambulatory practice scope when attempting to provide this care in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.