Women's Health

Currently, more than 3.8 million breast cancer survivors reside in the United States, reflecting high prevalence as well as cure rates for this common malignancy.

When over-the-counter measures including vaginal lubricants and moisturizers are not adequate, vaginal estrogen may be a highly effective treatment for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), a common condition associated with hypoestrogenism that impairs sexual function and quality of life.

Use of vaginal formulations does not result in systemic levels of estrogen above the normal postmenopausal range. Nonetheless, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lists a history of breast cancer as a contraindication to the use of all systemic as well as vaginal estrogens.

In premenopausal women, chemotherapy for breast cancer often results in early menopause. Aromatase inhibitors, although effective in preventing recurrent disease in menopausal women, exacerbate GSM. These factors result in a high prevalence of GSM in breast cancer survivors.

Because the safety of vaginal estrogen in the setting of breast cancer is uncertain, investigators at Johns Hopkins conducted a cohort study using claims-based data from more than 200 million U.S. patients that identified women with GSM who had previously been diagnosed with breast cancer. Among some 42,000 women diagnosed with GSM after breast cancer, 5% had three or more prescriptions and were considered vaginal estrogen users.

No significant differences were noted in recurrence-free survival between the vaginal estrogen group and the no estrogen group. At 5 and 10 years of follow-up, use of vaginal estrogen was not associated with higher all-cause mortality. Among women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors, risk for breast cancer recurrence was similar between estrogen users and nonusers.

However, concomitant use of vaginal estrogen and aromatase inhibitors was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer recurrence than was use of vaginal estrogen alone.

Although this important study’s findings have the limitations characteristic of observational studies, its large size and careful analyses suggest that in selected well-counseled breast cancer survivors, off-label use of vaginal estrogen may safely improve their sexual function and quality of life.

Dr. Kaunitz is associate chairman, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville. This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Currently, more than 3.8 million breast cancer survivors reside in the United States, reflecting high prevalence as well as cure rates for this common malignancy.

When over-the-counter measures including vaginal lubricants and moisturizers are not adequate, vaginal estrogen may be a highly effective treatment for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), a common condition associated with hypoestrogenism that impairs sexual function and quality of life.

Use of vaginal formulations does not result in systemic levels of estrogen above the normal postmenopausal range. Nonetheless, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lists a history of breast cancer as a contraindication to the use of all systemic as well as vaginal estrogens.

In premenopausal women, chemotherapy for breast cancer often results in early menopause. Aromatase inhibitors, although effective in preventing recurrent disease in menopausal women, exacerbate GSM. These factors result in a high prevalence of GSM in breast cancer survivors.

Because the safety of vaginal estrogen in the setting of breast cancer is uncertain, investigators at Johns Hopkins conducted a cohort study using claims-based data from more than 200 million U.S. patients that identified women with GSM who had previously been diagnosed with breast cancer. Among some 42,000 women diagnosed with GSM after breast cancer, 5% had three or more prescriptions and were considered vaginal estrogen users.

No significant differences were noted in recurrence-free survival between the vaginal estrogen group and the no estrogen group. At 5 and 10 years of follow-up, use of vaginal estrogen was not associated with higher all-cause mortality. Among women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors, risk for breast cancer recurrence was similar between estrogen users and nonusers.

However, concomitant use of vaginal estrogen and aromatase inhibitors was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer recurrence than was use of vaginal estrogen alone.

Although this important study’s findings have the limitations characteristic of observational studies, its large size and careful analyses suggest that in selected well-counseled breast cancer survivors, off-label use of vaginal estrogen may safely improve their sexual function and quality of life.

Dr. Kaunitz is associate chairman, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville. This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Currently, more than 3.8 million breast cancer survivors reside in the United States, reflecting high prevalence as well as cure rates for this common malignancy.

When over-the-counter measures including vaginal lubricants and moisturizers are not adequate, vaginal estrogen may be a highly effective treatment for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), a common condition associated with hypoestrogenism that impairs sexual function and quality of life.

Use of vaginal formulations does not result in systemic levels of estrogen above the normal postmenopausal range. Nonetheless, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lists a history of breast cancer as a contraindication to the use of all systemic as well as vaginal estrogens.

In premenopausal women, chemotherapy for breast cancer often results in early menopause. Aromatase inhibitors, although effective in preventing recurrent disease in menopausal women, exacerbate GSM. These factors result in a high prevalence of GSM in breast cancer survivors.

Because the safety of vaginal estrogen in the setting of breast cancer is uncertain, investigators at Johns Hopkins conducted a cohort study using claims-based data from more than 200 million U.S. patients that identified women with GSM who had previously been diagnosed with breast cancer. Among some 42,000 women diagnosed with GSM after breast cancer, 5% had three or more prescriptions and were considered vaginal estrogen users.

No significant differences were noted in recurrence-free survival between the vaginal estrogen group and the no estrogen group. At 5 and 10 years of follow-up, use of vaginal estrogen was not associated with higher all-cause mortality. Among women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors, risk for breast cancer recurrence was similar between estrogen users and nonusers.

However, concomitant use of vaginal estrogen and aromatase inhibitors was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer recurrence than was use of vaginal estrogen alone.

Although this important study’s findings have the limitations characteristic of observational studies, its large size and careful analyses suggest that in selected well-counseled breast cancer survivors, off-label use of vaginal estrogen may safely improve their sexual function and quality of life.

Dr. Kaunitz is associate chairman, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville. This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In utero exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) has been tied to reduced brain volume in children, results of a large population-based study show.

However, the investigators, led by Henning Tiemeier, MD, PhD, professor of social and behavioral sciences at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, note that the findings should be interpreted cautiously because the size of the study population who received brain MRI was relatively small.

Dr. Tiemeier said in an interview that the associations detected were small and could not show causality between prenatal SSRI use and a decrease in gray and white matter across certain areas of the brain.

“Women who are pregnant and on maintenance therapy should consult their therapist if preventive therapy is still needed and if there are alternatives. This choice must be carefully considered, and women should be carefully advised,” he said.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

An important decision

The investigators note that the decision to prescribe antidepressants, particularly SSRIs, during pregnancy is challenging. Though SSRI use during pregnancy is generally considered safe, some previous research suggests an association with negative outcomes in offspring, including adverse effects on neurodevelopment.

However, the researchers also note that it’s possible that pregnant women who use SSRIs may have other factors, including more severe depressive symptoms, which may be independently associated with adverse outcomes in offspring.

To investigate the link between intrauterine SSRI exposure and brain development, the researchers conducted a prospective, population-based study that included 3,198 pregnant individuals with an expected delivery date between April 2002 and January 2006. Study participants were divided into five groups: 41 who used SSRIs during pregnancy, 257 who did not use the medications but had depressive symptoms during pregnancy, 77 who used SSRIs prenatally, 74 who developed depressive symptoms after giving birth, and 2,749 controls with no SSRI use or depressive symptoms. Participants had a mean age of 31 years, and all identified as women.

Of those who took SSRIs during pregnancy, 20 used them during the first trimester only, and 21 used them the first or in one or two additional trimesters. The SSRIs used included paroxetine, fluoxetine, sertraline, fluvoxamine, and citalopram.

Offspring of the women enrolled in the study received MRIs at three different times between the ages 7 and 15 years.

The 41 children born to the women who took SSRIs prenatally had 80 scans in total, the 257 with mothers who did not use SSRIs yet had depressive symptoms while pregnant had 477 MRIs, the 77 children born to the mothers who took SSRIs before pregnancy had 126 MRIs, the 74 born to mothers with postnatal depression only had 128 MRIs, and the 2,749 children born to the mothers with no SSRI use or depression had 4,813 MRIs.

The study’s primary outcome was brain morphometry in offspring including global and cortical brain volumes, measured by three MRI assessments from ages 7 to 15 years.
 

Reduced brain volume

Compared with children with no in utero SSRI exposure, those who were exposed had reduced gray and white matter volume that persisted up to 15 years of age (P = .006), particularly in the corticolimbic circuit.

Investigators observed a “persistent association between prenatal SSRI exposure and less cortical volumes across the 10-year follow-up period, including in the superior frontal cortex, medial orbitofrontal cortex, parahippocampal gyrus, rostral anterior cingulate cortex, and posterior cingulate.”

Investigators noted that prenatal SSRI exposure was consistently associated with 5%-10% lower brain volume in the frontal, cingulate, and temporal cortex throughout the age range studied.

In a couple of areas of the brain, however, the brain volume gradually increased back to levels seen in non-SSRI exposed children. For instance, smaller amygdala volumes had increased by age 15 years, so children who were exposed to SSRIs were not any different from control children.

Among the group of women with postnatal depression using an SSRI before or during pregnancy who had depressive symptoms post natally, neonates had a reduced fusiform gyrus (P = .002)

Dr. Tiemeier could not speculate on the effects of the volume differences on children’s development, although the parts of the brain found to be reduced are primarily responsible for emotion regulation.

Investigators noted there was limited ability to investigate trimester-specific outcomes of SSRI use and assess associations with specific SSRIs due to low prevalence of SSRI use.

In addition, research on the long-term behavioral and psychological outcomes associated with demonstrated brain changes is needed, investigators noted.
 

Clinical significance ‘unclear’

In an accompanying editorial, Ardesheer Talati, PhD, Columbia University, New York, noted that though the research enhances understanding of how brain development through adolescence may be associated with SSRI exposure, “the clinical significance was unclear, especially as key limbic regions, including the amygdala, normalized over time.”

If future evidence links brain anomalies to adverse youth outcomes, Dr. Talati writes, this will need to be “calibrated into the risk-benefit profile.” Until then, he said, the findings must not be overinterpreted “to either promote or discourage antidepressant medication use during the critical period of pregnancy.”

The study was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, European Union’s Horizon Research and Innovation Program, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, the Sophia Foundation for Neuroimaging, and the European Union’s Horizon Research and Innovation 5 Program. Dr. Talati reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In utero exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) has been tied to reduced brain volume in children, results of a large population-based study show.

However, the investigators, led by Henning Tiemeier, MD, PhD, professor of social and behavioral sciences at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, note that the findings should be interpreted cautiously because the size of the study population who received brain MRI was relatively small.

Dr. Tiemeier said in an interview that the associations detected were small and could not show causality between prenatal SSRI use and a decrease in gray and white matter across certain areas of the brain.

“Women who are pregnant and on maintenance therapy should consult their therapist if preventive therapy is still needed and if there are alternatives. This choice must be carefully considered, and women should be carefully advised,” he said.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

An important decision

The investigators note that the decision to prescribe antidepressants, particularly SSRIs, during pregnancy is challenging. Though SSRI use during pregnancy is generally considered safe, some previous research suggests an association with negative outcomes in offspring, including adverse effects on neurodevelopment.

However, the researchers also note that it’s possible that pregnant women who use SSRIs may have other factors, including more severe depressive symptoms, which may be independently associated with adverse outcomes in offspring.

To investigate the link between intrauterine SSRI exposure and brain development, the researchers conducted a prospective, population-based study that included 3,198 pregnant individuals with an expected delivery date between April 2002 and January 2006. Study participants were divided into five groups: 41 who used SSRIs during pregnancy, 257 who did not use the medications but had depressive symptoms during pregnancy, 77 who used SSRIs prenatally, 74 who developed depressive symptoms after giving birth, and 2,749 controls with no SSRI use or depressive symptoms. Participants had a mean age of 31 years, and all identified as women.

Of those who took SSRIs during pregnancy, 20 used them during the first trimester only, and 21 used them the first or in one or two additional trimesters. The SSRIs used included paroxetine, fluoxetine, sertraline, fluvoxamine, and citalopram.

Offspring of the women enrolled in the study received MRIs at three different times between the ages 7 and 15 years.

The 41 children born to the women who took SSRIs prenatally had 80 scans in total, the 257 with mothers who did not use SSRIs yet had depressive symptoms while pregnant had 477 MRIs, the 77 children born to the mothers who took SSRIs before pregnancy had 126 MRIs, the 74 born to mothers with postnatal depression only had 128 MRIs, and the 2,749 children born to the mothers with no SSRI use or depression had 4,813 MRIs.

The study’s primary outcome was brain morphometry in offspring including global and cortical brain volumes, measured by three MRI assessments from ages 7 to 15 years.
 

Reduced brain volume

Compared with children with no in utero SSRI exposure, those who were exposed had reduced gray and white matter volume that persisted up to 15 years of age (P = .006), particularly in the corticolimbic circuit.

Investigators observed a “persistent association between prenatal SSRI exposure and less cortical volumes across the 10-year follow-up period, including in the superior frontal cortex, medial orbitofrontal cortex, parahippocampal gyrus, rostral anterior cingulate cortex, and posterior cingulate.”

Investigators noted that prenatal SSRI exposure was consistently associated with 5%-10% lower brain volume in the frontal, cingulate, and temporal cortex throughout the age range studied.

In a couple of areas of the brain, however, the brain volume gradually increased back to levels seen in non-SSRI exposed children. For instance, smaller amygdala volumes had increased by age 15 years, so children who were exposed to SSRIs were not any different from control children.

Among the group of women with postnatal depression using an SSRI before or during pregnancy who had depressive symptoms post natally, neonates had a reduced fusiform gyrus (P = .002)

Dr. Tiemeier could not speculate on the effects of the volume differences on children’s development, although the parts of the brain found to be reduced are primarily responsible for emotion regulation.

Investigators noted there was limited ability to investigate trimester-specific outcomes of SSRI use and assess associations with specific SSRIs due to low prevalence of SSRI use.

In addition, research on the long-term behavioral and psychological outcomes associated with demonstrated brain changes is needed, investigators noted.
 

Clinical significance ‘unclear’

In an accompanying editorial, Ardesheer Talati, PhD, Columbia University, New York, noted that though the research enhances understanding of how brain development through adolescence may be associated with SSRI exposure, “the clinical significance was unclear, especially as key limbic regions, including the amygdala, normalized over time.”

If future evidence links brain anomalies to adverse youth outcomes, Dr. Talati writes, this will need to be “calibrated into the risk-benefit profile.” Until then, he said, the findings must not be overinterpreted “to either promote or discourage antidepressant medication use during the critical period of pregnancy.”

The study was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, European Union’s Horizon Research and Innovation Program, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, the Sophia Foundation for Neuroimaging, and the European Union’s Horizon Research and Innovation 5 Program. Dr. Talati reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In utero exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) has been tied to reduced brain volume in children, results of a large population-based study show.

However, the investigators, led by Henning Tiemeier, MD, PhD, professor of social and behavioral sciences at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, note that the findings should be interpreted cautiously because the size of the study population who received brain MRI was relatively small.

Dr. Tiemeier said in an interview that the associations detected were small and could not show causality between prenatal SSRI use and a decrease in gray and white matter across certain areas of the brain.

“Women who are pregnant and on maintenance therapy should consult their therapist if preventive therapy is still needed and if there are alternatives. This choice must be carefully considered, and women should be carefully advised,” he said.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

An important decision

The investigators note that the decision to prescribe antidepressants, particularly SSRIs, during pregnancy is challenging. Though SSRI use during pregnancy is generally considered safe, some previous research suggests an association with negative outcomes in offspring, including adverse effects on neurodevelopment.

However, the researchers also note that it’s possible that pregnant women who use SSRIs may have other factors, including more severe depressive symptoms, which may be independently associated with adverse outcomes in offspring.

To investigate the link between intrauterine SSRI exposure and brain development, the researchers conducted a prospective, population-based study that included 3,198 pregnant individuals with an expected delivery date between April 2002 and January 2006. Study participants were divided into five groups: 41 who used SSRIs during pregnancy, 257 who did not use the medications but had depressive symptoms during pregnancy, 77 who used SSRIs prenatally, 74 who developed depressive symptoms after giving birth, and 2,749 controls with no SSRI use or depressive symptoms. Participants had a mean age of 31 years, and all identified as women.

Of those who took SSRIs during pregnancy, 20 used them during the first trimester only, and 21 used them the first or in one or two additional trimesters. The SSRIs used included paroxetine, fluoxetine, sertraline, fluvoxamine, and citalopram.

Offspring of the women enrolled in the study received MRIs at three different times between the ages 7 and 15 years.

The 41 children born to the women who took SSRIs prenatally had 80 scans in total, the 257 with mothers who did not use SSRIs yet had depressive symptoms while pregnant had 477 MRIs, the 77 children born to the mothers who took SSRIs before pregnancy had 126 MRIs, the 74 born to mothers with postnatal depression only had 128 MRIs, and the 2,749 children born to the mothers with no SSRI use or depression had 4,813 MRIs.

The study’s primary outcome was brain morphometry in offspring including global and cortical brain volumes, measured by three MRI assessments from ages 7 to 15 years.
 

Reduced brain volume

Compared with children with no in utero SSRI exposure, those who were exposed had reduced gray and white matter volume that persisted up to 15 years of age (P = .006), particularly in the corticolimbic circuit.

Investigators observed a “persistent association between prenatal SSRI exposure and less cortical volumes across the 10-year follow-up period, including in the superior frontal cortex, medial orbitofrontal cortex, parahippocampal gyrus, rostral anterior cingulate cortex, and posterior cingulate.”

Investigators noted that prenatal SSRI exposure was consistently associated with 5%-10% lower brain volume in the frontal, cingulate, and temporal cortex throughout the age range studied.

In a couple of areas of the brain, however, the brain volume gradually increased back to levels seen in non-SSRI exposed children. For instance, smaller amygdala volumes had increased by age 15 years, so children who were exposed to SSRIs were not any different from control children.

Among the group of women with postnatal depression using an SSRI before or during pregnancy who had depressive symptoms post natally, neonates had a reduced fusiform gyrus (P = .002)

Dr. Tiemeier could not speculate on the effects of the volume differences on children’s development, although the parts of the brain found to be reduced are primarily responsible for emotion regulation.

Investigators noted there was limited ability to investigate trimester-specific outcomes of SSRI use and assess associations with specific SSRIs due to low prevalence of SSRI use.

In addition, research on the long-term behavioral and psychological outcomes associated with demonstrated brain changes is needed, investigators noted.
 

Clinical significance ‘unclear’

In an accompanying editorial, Ardesheer Talati, PhD, Columbia University, New York, noted that though the research enhances understanding of how brain development through adolescence may be associated with SSRI exposure, “the clinical significance was unclear, especially as key limbic regions, including the amygdala, normalized over time.”

If future evidence links brain anomalies to adverse youth outcomes, Dr. Talati writes, this will need to be “calibrated into the risk-benefit profile.” Until then, he said, the findings must not be overinterpreted “to either promote or discourage antidepressant medication use during the critical period of pregnancy.”

The study was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, European Union’s Horizon Research and Innovation Program, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, the Sophia Foundation for Neuroimaging, and the European Union’s Horizon Research and Innovation 5 Program. Dr. Talati reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study found a significant association between lower sexual frequency and greater all-cause mortality in young and middle-aged people with hypertension. Should primary care physicians be offering a pleasure prescription to the 6 in 10 Americans living with chronic illness? How can we help these patients access their capacity for sexual pleasure, a critical and life-affirming component of the human experience?

Ask, don’t tell

First, we need to ask routinely about sexual well-being and pleasure. Without asking patients their views, we do not know the relevance of sex for their quality of life. Unless we ask, we do not know what specific kinds of sexual play are important for a person’s pleasure, nor can we assume how they prioritize their sexual functioning in the context of their medical care. When I began asking my primary care patients about sexual well-being, many more than I expected were quietly holding on to distressing issues. Now, as a sexual medicine specialist, in each sexual function evaluation, I ask three key questions: What are your goals? What does sex mean to you? What kinds of sexual play are important for your (and your partner’s) pleasure?

Chronic disease – with physical symptoms as well as psychological, relational, and cultural components – affects both general and genital physiology. Any disease process that alters vascular, neuroendocrine, or musculoskeletal function is likely to influence sexual function, either directly through the disease process or indirectly through complications or the effect on identity and well-being. In addition, a host of iatrogenic changes to sexual function may accompany effects of treatments.

Managing the effects of chronic illness on sexuality requires resilience and flexibility. A serious injury may require a massive adjustment to sexuality, but progressive disease may require continuous accommodations to sexual changes. The life stage at which the disease occurs also matters. People facing disease early in life encounter challenges (finding willing sexual partners and limited medical guidance regarding their sexual functioning) as well as benefits (they may integrate their disease as part of their sexual life). Those who experience sexual changes related to their illness later in life may face a loss of “normal” sexual function and well-being.

Meanwhile, the partner who is not ill may have their own sexual needs, fears, and worries. Both patients and partners may experience disenfranchised grief – a sense of loss about something one is not culturally permitted to mourn (“I/my partner is alive in the face of this terrible illness; who am I to worry about our/my sexual pleasure?”).

Positive marital relationships influence health through improved survival, improved medical adherence, better quality of life for the patient, and improved life satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction is an important factor in relational satisfaction. Helping our patients with these changes therefore may improve not only sexual health but overall health.

How, then, should we address sexual pleasure in chronic illness care? Here are a few tips:

Focus on pleasure. “Performance” is foul language when it comes to sex. Full attention to sensation and enjoyment, the only sexual “skill” anyone needs, is impossible while trying to perform.

Encourage flexibility and recognize that sex encompasses a wide and varied menu of experiences that change over a lifetime. Sex is everything from kissing and cuddling to the wildest things a mind can imagine. We can help both patients and partners think about the wide variety of ways to meet sexual needs. Balancing acceptance of sexual changes with motivation for improvement also is part of our role.

Address the effects of illness on the patient’s relationship with their body. Illness may alter not only bodily function but also self-esteem and body image. A reorganization of self-concept may occur (“I am no longer a sexual person; I’m a sexually dysfunctional asthmatic/diabetic/etc. and should avoid sexual intimacy”). Examining these self-constructs allows shifts in thoughts and behaviors, leading to improved psychological and sexual well-being. Encourage patients to explore what feels good in this body now. When possible, we can help with referral for corrective surgeries or direction to resources like stoma covers, wigs, scarves, and tattoos.

We offer suggestions for “sleep hygiene”; how about pleasure hygiene?

• Encourage open communication with partner(s) and offer resources to develop communication skills.
• Consider needs for physical and emotional preparation for sexual play: adequate rest, preparing the environment for body fluids, pillows for comfort or aides for positioning, and plenty of lubricant at hand.
• Allow adequate time for sexual play and encourage the ability to adjust or stop and start over – with humor and self-compassion.
• Use sexual aides to enhance pleasure.
• Seek out sexual medicine and sex therapy colleagues when things become tricky.

All bodies, no matter their health or illness state, are capable of pleasure. Hey, pleasure might even save lives!

Dr. Kranz is an clinical assistant professor of obstetrics/gynecology and family medicine, University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. She reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study found a significant association between lower sexual frequency and greater all-cause mortality in young and middle-aged people with hypertension. Should primary care physicians be offering a pleasure prescription to the 6 in 10 Americans living with chronic illness? How can we help these patients access their capacity for sexual pleasure, a critical and life-affirming component of the human experience?

Ask, don’t tell

First, we need to ask routinely about sexual well-being and pleasure. Without asking patients their views, we do not know the relevance of sex for their quality of life. Unless we ask, we do not know what specific kinds of sexual play are important for a person’s pleasure, nor can we assume how they prioritize their sexual functioning in the context of their medical care. When I began asking my primary care patients about sexual well-being, many more than I expected were quietly holding on to distressing issues. Now, as a sexual medicine specialist, in each sexual function evaluation, I ask three key questions: What are your goals? What does sex mean to you? What kinds of sexual play are important for your (and your partner’s) pleasure?

Chronic disease – with physical symptoms as well as psychological, relational, and cultural components – affects both general and genital physiology. Any disease process that alters vascular, neuroendocrine, or musculoskeletal function is likely to influence sexual function, either directly through the disease process or indirectly through complications or the effect on identity and well-being. In addition, a host of iatrogenic changes to sexual function may accompany effects of treatments.

Managing the effects of chronic illness on sexuality requires resilience and flexibility. A serious injury may require a massive adjustment to sexuality, but progressive disease may require continuous accommodations to sexual changes. The life stage at which the disease occurs also matters. People facing disease early in life encounter challenges (finding willing sexual partners and limited medical guidance regarding their sexual functioning) as well as benefits (they may integrate their disease as part of their sexual life). Those who experience sexual changes related to their illness later in life may face a loss of “normal” sexual function and well-being.

Meanwhile, the partner who is not ill may have their own sexual needs, fears, and worries. Both patients and partners may experience disenfranchised grief – a sense of loss about something one is not culturally permitted to mourn (“I/my partner is alive in the face of this terrible illness; who am I to worry about our/my sexual pleasure?”).

Positive marital relationships influence health through improved survival, improved medical adherence, better quality of life for the patient, and improved life satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction is an important factor in relational satisfaction. Helping our patients with these changes therefore may improve not only sexual health but overall health.

How, then, should we address sexual pleasure in chronic illness care? Here are a few tips:

Focus on pleasure. “Performance” is foul language when it comes to sex. Full attention to sensation and enjoyment, the only sexual “skill” anyone needs, is impossible while trying to perform.

Encourage flexibility and recognize that sex encompasses a wide and varied menu of experiences that change over a lifetime. Sex is everything from kissing and cuddling to the wildest things a mind can imagine. We can help both patients and partners think about the wide variety of ways to meet sexual needs. Balancing acceptance of sexual changes with motivation for improvement also is part of our role.

Address the effects of illness on the patient’s relationship with their body. Illness may alter not only bodily function but also self-esteem and body image. A reorganization of self-concept may occur (“I am no longer a sexual person; I’m a sexually dysfunctional asthmatic/diabetic/etc. and should avoid sexual intimacy”). Examining these self-constructs allows shifts in thoughts and behaviors, leading to improved psychological and sexual well-being. Encourage patients to explore what feels good in this body now. When possible, we can help with referral for corrective surgeries or direction to resources like stoma covers, wigs, scarves, and tattoos.

We offer suggestions for “sleep hygiene”; how about pleasure hygiene?

• Encourage open communication with partner(s) and offer resources to develop communication skills.
• Consider needs for physical and emotional preparation for sexual play: adequate rest, preparing the environment for body fluids, pillows for comfort or aides for positioning, and plenty of lubricant at hand.
• Allow adequate time for sexual play and encourage the ability to adjust or stop and start over – with humor and self-compassion.
• Use sexual aides to enhance pleasure.
• Seek out sexual medicine and sex therapy colleagues when things become tricky.

All bodies, no matter their health or illness state, are capable of pleasure. Hey, pleasure might even save lives!

Dr. Kranz is an clinical assistant professor of obstetrics/gynecology and family medicine, University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. She reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study found a significant association between lower sexual frequency and greater all-cause mortality in young and middle-aged people with hypertension. Should primary care physicians be offering a pleasure prescription to the 6 in 10 Americans living with chronic illness? How can we help these patients access their capacity for sexual pleasure, a critical and life-affirming component of the human experience?

Ask, don’t tell

First, we need to ask routinely about sexual well-being and pleasure. Without asking patients their views, we do not know the relevance of sex for their quality of life. Unless we ask, we do not know what specific kinds of sexual play are important for a person’s pleasure, nor can we assume how they prioritize their sexual functioning in the context of their medical care. When I began asking my primary care patients about sexual well-being, many more than I expected were quietly holding on to distressing issues. Now, as a sexual medicine specialist, in each sexual function evaluation, I ask three key questions: What are your goals? What does sex mean to you? What kinds of sexual play are important for your (and your partner’s) pleasure?

Chronic disease – with physical symptoms as well as psychological, relational, and cultural components – affects both general and genital physiology. Any disease process that alters vascular, neuroendocrine, or musculoskeletal function is likely to influence sexual function, either directly through the disease process or indirectly through complications or the effect on identity and well-being. In addition, a host of iatrogenic changes to sexual function may accompany effects of treatments.

Managing the effects of chronic illness on sexuality requires resilience and flexibility. A serious injury may require a massive adjustment to sexuality, but progressive disease may require continuous accommodations to sexual changes. The life stage at which the disease occurs also matters. People facing disease early in life encounter challenges (finding willing sexual partners and limited medical guidance regarding their sexual functioning) as well as benefits (they may integrate their disease as part of their sexual life). Those who experience sexual changes related to their illness later in life may face a loss of “normal” sexual function and well-being.

Meanwhile, the partner who is not ill may have their own sexual needs, fears, and worries. Both patients and partners may experience disenfranchised grief – a sense of loss about something one is not culturally permitted to mourn (“I/my partner is alive in the face of this terrible illness; who am I to worry about our/my sexual pleasure?”).

Positive marital relationships influence health through improved survival, improved medical adherence, better quality of life for the patient, and improved life satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction is an important factor in relational satisfaction. Helping our patients with these changes therefore may improve not only sexual health but overall health.

How, then, should we address sexual pleasure in chronic illness care? Here are a few tips:

Focus on pleasure. “Performance” is foul language when it comes to sex. Full attention to sensation and enjoyment, the only sexual “skill” anyone needs, is impossible while trying to perform.

Encourage flexibility and recognize that sex encompasses a wide and varied menu of experiences that change over a lifetime. Sex is everything from kissing and cuddling to the wildest things a mind can imagine. We can help both patients and partners think about the wide variety of ways to meet sexual needs. Balancing acceptance of sexual changes with motivation for improvement also is part of our role.

Address the effects of illness on the patient’s relationship with their body. Illness may alter not only bodily function but also self-esteem and body image. A reorganization of self-concept may occur (“I am no longer a sexual person; I’m a sexually dysfunctional asthmatic/diabetic/etc. and should avoid sexual intimacy”). Examining these self-constructs allows shifts in thoughts and behaviors, leading to improved psychological and sexual well-being. Encourage patients to explore what feels good in this body now. When possible, we can help with referral for corrective surgeries or direction to resources like stoma covers, wigs, scarves, and tattoos.

We offer suggestions for “sleep hygiene”; how about pleasure hygiene?

• Encourage open communication with partner(s) and offer resources to develop communication skills.
• Consider needs for physical and emotional preparation for sexual play: adequate rest, preparing the environment for body fluids, pillows for comfort or aides for positioning, and plenty of lubricant at hand.
• Allow adequate time for sexual play and encourage the ability to adjust or stop and start over – with humor and self-compassion.
• Use sexual aides to enhance pleasure.
• Seek out sexual medicine and sex therapy colleagues when things become tricky.

All bodies, no matter their health or illness state, are capable of pleasure. Hey, pleasure might even save lives!

Dr. Kranz is an clinical assistant professor of obstetrics/gynecology and family medicine, University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. She reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2017, a survey of 20 U.S. residency programs in family medicine, internal medicine, and ob.gyn. showed that only 6.8% of residents felt they were being adequately prepared to manage menopausal patients effectively, including how to use hormone therapy (HT).

Of the 177 residents who responded to the survey, 102 (56%) were in either family medicine or internal medicine.

“My guess is that there has been no substantial evolution in medical training to this day,” said lead survey study author Juliana Kling, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, chair of women’s health internal medicine, and dean, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Scottsdale, Ariz.

The survey showed that overall 98% of residents thought it was important to know about menopause. However, 34% said they wouldn’t recommend HT in a severely symptomatic woman with no contraindications, and 60% said they wouldn’t recommend HT until at least the natural age of menopause in a prematurely menopausal woman. Some even recommended against it.

“Hormone therapy is effective, and for most healthy women younger than 60, the benefits are going to outweigh the risks,” said Dr. Kling. “We need to be comfortable, even in internal medicine, with prescribing hormones for the right women.”

The researchers concluded that “residual ambivalence about [hormone therapy] on the part of educators” may have played a role in curriculums that didn’t acknowledge the clinical relevance of menopause or include current evidence on the use of HT. Physicians should be taught to recognize menopausal symptoms, know the risks and benefits of HT and the alternatives, and how to select suitable candidates, they said.

Up to 80% of women in the United States are affected by menopausal vasomotor symptoms, but only one in four receive treatment, Dr. Kling pointed out. “Women will spend about a third of their lives after menopause, so being prepared to manage the consequences of menopause, such as bone health, vaginal dryness and painful intercourse, and increased cardiovascular disease risk, is critically important to all of us caring for women,” she emphasized. “These aren’t just ‘bothersome symptoms.’ ”

It is estimated that by 2060, there will be 90 million postmenopausal women in the United States. “Given the number of women who will experience symptoms of menopause and the considerable associated burden to their health and to the health care system, it is important to invest in educating future clinicians to provide evidence-based, comprehensive menopause management,” said Dr. Kling and coauthors in a February 2023 review of menopause treatments.

HT is the standard for the treatment of hot flashes and night sweats, and is highly effective for the prevention of bone loss and managing genitourinary syndrome of menopause. Among the alternatives to HT, the nonhormonal pharmacologic fezolinetant (Veozah) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last May.

Following the early negative reports from the Women’s Health Initiative study of HT in 2002 and 2004, however, steep declines in HT prescription rates were seen among internists and family medicine practitioners. By 2009, only 18% of all HT prescriptions were written by primary care providers, and today, many remain wary about prescribing HT, despite evidence of its clinical value and safety.

“I think there’s a whole generation of family physicians who were taught that [hormone therapy] is dangerous and still feel very uncomfortable about using it to treat menopausal symptoms,” said Santina J.G. Wheat, MD, MPH, associate professor of family and community medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “These are the physicians educating the next generation of physicians,” said Dr. Wheat, who is program director for the McGaw Northwestern Family Medicine Residency Erie Humboldt Park.

Heather Hirsch, MD, an internist who specializes in menopause medicine in Columbus, Ohio, estimates that there are 300 internists among the 1,000 or so health care providers currently certified in menopause medicine through The Menopause Society (formerly the North American Menopause Society or NAMS). With 63 million women in the United States between the ages of 34 and 65, “that adds up to one doctor for several million patients,” she pointed out.

“In my opinion, the impact on menopausal care is profound,” said Jennifer T. Allen, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, and director of menopause and midlife health at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta. “If a physician was not exposed to menopause medicine in medical school or residency and does not choose to learn about menopause after training, then the opportunity to fully care for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women is extinguished.”

Not everyone agrees. “There’s no question that women’s health in general and menopausal issues specifically are a critical part of health care that is typically covered in most family medicine curriculums,” said Neil S. Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College in Philadelphia. “In family medicine, we really do attend to women’s health – particularly women’s health around menopause – as an important part of resident physician training,” emphasized Dr. Skolnik who is also and also associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health in Jenkintown, Penn.

"Family physicians are in a unique position to offer female patients effective care at perimenopause and beyond," added Karen L. Smith, MD, a family physician from Raeford, N.C., who is a board member of the American Academy of Family Physicians.*  

Even so, many primary care physicians remain unsure about the use of HT, according to William E. Golden, MD, an internist and geriatrician, and professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

“On the whole area of hot flashes and vasomotor instability, I think we’re in a state of significant flux and confusion,” Dr. Golden said in an interview. “For a long time, a lot of doctors told patients, ‘It’s okay, you’ll age out of it.’ Then the data started showing that the vasomotor symptoms continued for years so physicians began to reevaluate how to manage them. Now, the pendulum has swung back to giving estrogen.”

Many family physicians have been left to their own devices to figure out how to manage menopausal patients, said Dr. Wheat. “When there are significant changes to clinical management – or in the case of HT, a real reversal in how menopausal symptoms are managed – getting information out to physicians can be challenging.”

Meanwhile, patient demand for answers to their questions about menopause and the use of HT is changing the conversation, where it’s taking place, and with whom.

Some media-savvy doctors have taken to TikTok, where a lot of women started educating themselves about menopause during the pandemic. Dr. Hirsch is one of them. She uses the social media platform to talk about menopause and FDA-approved HT, but warned that for every clinician who is certified in menopause medicine “there are five more selling snake oil.”

Mainstream media has also jumped on the menopause bandwagon. The New York Times was one of the first, declaring that “menopause is having a moment.” On Feb. 1, the newspaper stormed the gates of the medical establishment with an article asking why more doctors weren’t offering HT to women experiencing hot flashes, sleeplessness, and pain during sex. The headline: “Women have been misled about menopause.”

On April 5, “The Menopause Talk” was posted to Oprah Daily, along with a menopause curriculum to give viewers “the tools to stay firmly in the driver’s seat as you navigate perimenopause and then menopause.” Popular topics included how to get your sex life back, premature menopause survival, and ways to work with insurers so that treatment is affordable.

“There’s been a sea-change in the culture that’s being driven by patient demand,” said Dr. Kling. “The conversation, colloquially, in the media, and with our patients, is evolving. Menopause is no longer such a taboo topic, and our patients are really demanding that we have answers for them. Clinicians are recognizing that they need better training in menopause and seeking that out.”

Last June, “Transforming Women’s Health” – the Mayo Clinic’s annual CME program held in partnership with The Menopause Society – had record physician attendance. “We’re going to make sure that our trainees are learning the up-to-date recommendations, not the ones from 20 years ago when the initial WHI reports made everyone fearful of hormones,” said Dr. Kling.

Dr. Kling disclosed that she is a medical editor for Everyday Health, and has a relationship with Evolve Medical Education. Dr. Skolnik reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. He is an MDedge Family Medicine board member. Dr. Golden is an MDedge Internal Medicine board member, and Dr. Wheat is an MDedge Family Medicine board member. Dr. Allen reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

* This story was updated on Sept 18, 2023. The quotation is attributable to Dr. Smith, not Dr. Skolnik.

In 2017, a survey of 20 U.S. residency programs in family medicine, internal medicine, and ob.gyn. showed that only 6.8% of residents felt they were being adequately prepared to manage menopausal patients effectively, including how to use hormone therapy (HT).

Of the 177 residents who responded to the survey, 102 (56%) were in either family medicine or internal medicine.

“My guess is that there has been no substantial evolution in medical training to this day,” said lead survey study author Juliana Kling, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, chair of women’s health internal medicine, and dean, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Scottsdale, Ariz.

The survey showed that overall 98% of residents thought it was important to know about menopause. However, 34% said they wouldn’t recommend HT in a severely symptomatic woman with no contraindications, and 60% said they wouldn’t recommend HT until at least the natural age of menopause in a prematurely menopausal woman. Some even recommended against it.

“Hormone therapy is effective, and for most healthy women younger than 60, the benefits are going to outweigh the risks,” said Dr. Kling. “We need to be comfortable, even in internal medicine, with prescribing hormones for the right women.”

The researchers concluded that “residual ambivalence about [hormone therapy] on the part of educators” may have played a role in curriculums that didn’t acknowledge the clinical relevance of menopause or include current evidence on the use of HT. Physicians should be taught to recognize menopausal symptoms, know the risks and benefits of HT and the alternatives, and how to select suitable candidates, they said.

Up to 80% of women in the United States are affected by menopausal vasomotor symptoms, but only one in four receive treatment, Dr. Kling pointed out. “Women will spend about a third of their lives after menopause, so being prepared to manage the consequences of menopause, such as bone health, vaginal dryness and painful intercourse, and increased cardiovascular disease risk, is critically important to all of us caring for women,” she emphasized. “These aren’t just ‘bothersome symptoms.’ ”

It is estimated that by 2060, there will be 90 million postmenopausal women in the United States. “Given the number of women who will experience symptoms of menopause and the considerable associated burden to their health and to the health care system, it is important to invest in educating future clinicians to provide evidence-based, comprehensive menopause management,” said Dr. Kling and coauthors in a February 2023 review of menopause treatments.

HT is the standard for the treatment of hot flashes and night sweats, and is highly effective for the prevention of bone loss and managing genitourinary syndrome of menopause. Among the alternatives to HT, the nonhormonal pharmacologic fezolinetant (Veozah) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last May.

Following the early negative reports from the Women’s Health Initiative study of HT in 2002 and 2004, however, steep declines in HT prescription rates were seen among internists and family medicine practitioners. By 2009, only 18% of all HT prescriptions were written by primary care providers, and today, many remain wary about prescribing HT, despite evidence of its clinical value and safety.

“I think there’s a whole generation of family physicians who were taught that [hormone therapy] is dangerous and still feel very uncomfortable about using it to treat menopausal symptoms,” said Santina J.G. Wheat, MD, MPH, associate professor of family and community medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “These are the physicians educating the next generation of physicians,” said Dr. Wheat, who is program director for the McGaw Northwestern Family Medicine Residency Erie Humboldt Park.

Heather Hirsch, MD, an internist who specializes in menopause medicine in Columbus, Ohio, estimates that there are 300 internists among the 1,000 or so health care providers currently certified in menopause medicine through The Menopause Society (formerly the North American Menopause Society or NAMS). With 63 million women in the United States between the ages of 34 and 65, “that adds up to one doctor for several million patients,” she pointed out.

“In my opinion, the impact on menopausal care is profound,” said Jennifer T. Allen, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, and director of menopause and midlife health at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta. “If a physician was not exposed to menopause medicine in medical school or residency and does not choose to learn about menopause after training, then the opportunity to fully care for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women is extinguished.”

Not everyone agrees. “There’s no question that women’s health in general and menopausal issues specifically are a critical part of health care that is typically covered in most family medicine curriculums,” said Neil S. Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College in Philadelphia. “In family medicine, we really do attend to women’s health – particularly women’s health around menopause – as an important part of resident physician training,” emphasized Dr. Skolnik who is also and also associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health in Jenkintown, Penn.

"Family physicians are in a unique position to offer female patients effective care at perimenopause and beyond," added Karen L. Smith, MD, a family physician from Raeford, N.C., who is a board member of the American Academy of Family Physicians.*  

Even so, many primary care physicians remain unsure about the use of HT, according to William E. Golden, MD, an internist and geriatrician, and professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

“On the whole area of hot flashes and vasomotor instability, I think we’re in a state of significant flux and confusion,” Dr. Golden said in an interview. “For a long time, a lot of doctors told patients, ‘It’s okay, you’ll age out of it.’ Then the data started showing that the vasomotor symptoms continued for years so physicians began to reevaluate how to manage them. Now, the pendulum has swung back to giving estrogen.”

Many family physicians have been left to their own devices to figure out how to manage menopausal patients, said Dr. Wheat. “When there are significant changes to clinical management – or in the case of HT, a real reversal in how menopausal symptoms are managed – getting information out to physicians can be challenging.”

Meanwhile, patient demand for answers to their questions about menopause and the use of HT is changing the conversation, where it’s taking place, and with whom.

Some media-savvy doctors have taken to TikTok, where a lot of women started educating themselves about menopause during the pandemic. Dr. Hirsch is one of them. She uses the social media platform to talk about menopause and FDA-approved HT, but warned that for every clinician who is certified in menopause medicine “there are five more selling snake oil.”

Mainstream media has also jumped on the menopause bandwagon. The New York Times was one of the first, declaring that “menopause is having a moment.” On Feb. 1, the newspaper stormed the gates of the medical establishment with an article asking why more doctors weren’t offering HT to women experiencing hot flashes, sleeplessness, and pain during sex. The headline: “Women have been misled about menopause.”

On April 5, “The Menopause Talk” was posted to Oprah Daily, along with a menopause curriculum to give viewers “the tools to stay firmly in the driver’s seat as you navigate perimenopause and then menopause.” Popular topics included how to get your sex life back, premature menopause survival, and ways to work with insurers so that treatment is affordable.

“There’s been a sea-change in the culture that’s being driven by patient demand,” said Dr. Kling. “The conversation, colloquially, in the media, and with our patients, is evolving. Menopause is no longer such a taboo topic, and our patients are really demanding that we have answers for them. Clinicians are recognizing that they need better training in menopause and seeking that out.”

Last June, “Transforming Women’s Health” – the Mayo Clinic’s annual CME program held in partnership with The Menopause Society – had record physician attendance. “We’re going to make sure that our trainees are learning the up-to-date recommendations, not the ones from 20 years ago when the initial WHI reports made everyone fearful of hormones,” said Dr. Kling.

Dr. Kling disclosed that she is a medical editor for Everyday Health, and has a relationship with Evolve Medical Education. Dr. Skolnik reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. He is an MDedge Family Medicine board member. Dr. Golden is an MDedge Internal Medicine board member, and Dr. Wheat is an MDedge Family Medicine board member. Dr. Allen reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

* This story was updated on Sept 18, 2023. The quotation is attributable to Dr. Smith, not Dr. Skolnik.

In 2017, a survey of 20 U.S. residency programs in family medicine, internal medicine, and ob.gyn. showed that only 6.8% of residents felt they were being adequately prepared to manage menopausal patients effectively, including how to use hormone therapy (HT).

Of the 177 residents who responded to the survey, 102 (56%) were in either family medicine or internal medicine.

“My guess is that there has been no substantial evolution in medical training to this day,” said lead survey study author Juliana Kling, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, chair of women’s health internal medicine, and dean, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Scottsdale, Ariz.

The survey showed that overall 98% of residents thought it was important to know about menopause. However, 34% said they wouldn’t recommend HT in a severely symptomatic woman with no contraindications, and 60% said they wouldn’t recommend HT until at least the natural age of menopause in a prematurely menopausal woman. Some even recommended against it.

“Hormone therapy is effective, and for most healthy women younger than 60, the benefits are going to outweigh the risks,” said Dr. Kling. “We need to be comfortable, even in internal medicine, with prescribing hormones for the right women.”

The researchers concluded that “residual ambivalence about [hormone therapy] on the part of educators” may have played a role in curriculums that didn’t acknowledge the clinical relevance of menopause or include current evidence on the use of HT. Physicians should be taught to recognize menopausal symptoms, know the risks and benefits of HT and the alternatives, and how to select suitable candidates, they said.

Up to 80% of women in the United States are affected by menopausal vasomotor symptoms, but only one in four receive treatment, Dr. Kling pointed out. “Women will spend about a third of their lives after menopause, so being prepared to manage the consequences of menopause, such as bone health, vaginal dryness and painful intercourse, and increased cardiovascular disease risk, is critically important to all of us caring for women,” she emphasized. “These aren’t just ‘bothersome symptoms.’ ”

It is estimated that by 2060, there will be 90 million postmenopausal women in the United States. “Given the number of women who will experience symptoms of menopause and the considerable associated burden to their health and to the health care system, it is important to invest in educating future clinicians to provide evidence-based, comprehensive menopause management,” said Dr. Kling and coauthors in a February 2023 review of menopause treatments.

HT is the standard for the treatment of hot flashes and night sweats, and is highly effective for the prevention of bone loss and managing genitourinary syndrome of menopause. Among the alternatives to HT, the nonhormonal pharmacologic fezolinetant (Veozah) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last May.

Following the early negative reports from the Women’s Health Initiative study of HT in 2002 and 2004, however, steep declines in HT prescription rates were seen among internists and family medicine practitioners. By 2009, only 18% of all HT prescriptions were written by primary care providers, and today, many remain wary about prescribing HT, despite evidence of its clinical value and safety.

“I think there’s a whole generation of family physicians who were taught that [hormone therapy] is dangerous and still feel very uncomfortable about using it to treat menopausal symptoms,” said Santina J.G. Wheat, MD, MPH, associate professor of family and community medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “These are the physicians educating the next generation of physicians,” said Dr. Wheat, who is program director for the McGaw Northwestern Family Medicine Residency Erie Humboldt Park.

Heather Hirsch, MD, an internist who specializes in menopause medicine in Columbus, Ohio, estimates that there are 300 internists among the 1,000 or so health care providers currently certified in menopause medicine through The Menopause Society (formerly the North American Menopause Society or NAMS). With 63 million women in the United States between the ages of 34 and 65, “that adds up to one doctor for several million patients,” she pointed out.

“In my opinion, the impact on menopausal care is profound,” said Jennifer T. Allen, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, and director of menopause and midlife health at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta. “If a physician was not exposed to menopause medicine in medical school or residency and does not choose to learn about menopause after training, then the opportunity to fully care for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women is extinguished.”

Not everyone agrees. “There’s no question that women’s health in general and menopausal issues specifically are a critical part of health care that is typically covered in most family medicine curriculums,” said Neil S. Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College in Philadelphia. “In family medicine, we really do attend to women’s health – particularly women’s health around menopause – as an important part of resident physician training,” emphasized Dr. Skolnik who is also and also associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health in Jenkintown, Penn.

"Family physicians are in a unique position to offer female patients effective care at perimenopause and beyond," added Karen L. Smith, MD, a family physician from Raeford, N.C., who is a board member of the American Academy of Family Physicians.*  

Even so, many primary care physicians remain unsure about the use of HT, according to William E. Golden, MD, an internist and geriatrician, and professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

“On the whole area of hot flashes and vasomotor instability, I think we’re in a state of significant flux and confusion,” Dr. Golden said in an interview. “For a long time, a lot of doctors told patients, ‘It’s okay, you’ll age out of it.’ Then the data started showing that the vasomotor symptoms continued for years so physicians began to reevaluate how to manage them. Now, the pendulum has swung back to giving estrogen.”

Many family physicians have been left to their own devices to figure out how to manage menopausal patients, said Dr. Wheat. “When there are significant changes to clinical management – or in the case of HT, a real reversal in how menopausal symptoms are managed – getting information out to physicians can be challenging.”

Meanwhile, patient demand for answers to their questions about menopause and the use of HT is changing the conversation, where it’s taking place, and with whom.

Some media-savvy doctors have taken to TikTok, where a lot of women started educating themselves about menopause during the pandemic. Dr. Hirsch is one of them. She uses the social media platform to talk about menopause and FDA-approved HT, but warned that for every clinician who is certified in menopause medicine “there are five more selling snake oil.”

Mainstream media has also jumped on the menopause bandwagon. The New York Times was one of the first, declaring that “menopause is having a moment.” On Feb. 1, the newspaper stormed the gates of the medical establishment with an article asking why more doctors weren’t offering HT to women experiencing hot flashes, sleeplessness, and pain during sex. The headline: “Women have been misled about menopause.”

On April 5, “The Menopause Talk” was posted to Oprah Daily, along with a menopause curriculum to give viewers “the tools to stay firmly in the driver’s seat as you navigate perimenopause and then menopause.” Popular topics included how to get your sex life back, premature menopause survival, and ways to work with insurers so that treatment is affordable.

“There’s been a sea-change in the culture that’s being driven by patient demand,” said Dr. Kling. “The conversation, colloquially, in the media, and with our patients, is evolving. Menopause is no longer such a taboo topic, and our patients are really demanding that we have answers for them. Clinicians are recognizing that they need better training in menopause and seeking that out.”

Last June, “Transforming Women’s Health” – the Mayo Clinic’s annual CME program held in partnership with The Menopause Society – had record physician attendance. “We’re going to make sure that our trainees are learning the up-to-date recommendations, not the ones from 20 years ago when the initial WHI reports made everyone fearful of hormones,” said Dr. Kling.

Dr. Kling disclosed that she is a medical editor for Everyday Health, and has a relationship with Evolve Medical Education. Dr. Skolnik reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. He is an MDedge Family Medicine board member. Dr. Golden is an MDedge Internal Medicine board member, and Dr. Wheat is an MDedge Family Medicine board member. Dr. Allen reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

* This story was updated on Sept 18, 2023. The quotation is attributable to Dr. Smith, not Dr. Skolnik.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today, I’d like to talk about private parts. You know: the genitals, down there.

I hate all of that. I really wish that we can get to a place where we can talk about genitals and sexual health the same way we do about high blood pressure and diabetes. In fact, when a new patient comes in and they get a new diagnosis of diabetes, you spend time explaining to them how their pancreas works. I don’t remember all the details because I’m a urologist. But you explain the details of diabetes, how it works, why therapy is important, and how it’s very important for quality of life.

I would like us to take that same understanding of anatomy and physiology and use it to explain to patients how their sexual health works because when they understand it, they then have the tools to make it better. I say to patients, “You have to know what parts you have in order to figure out how they drive, right?” We want them to drive better.

Let me give you an example. Many men come to see me with complaints of erectile dysfunction. They refuse to take sildenafil and tadalafil (Viagra and Cialis), saying, “Oh my gosh, those are magic pills. I won’t be a man if take them.” We all know that doesn’t make any sense. I explain to them how their penis works: “Your penis is a muscle. The muscle does two things. It contracts and it relaxes, just like your bicep. It’s just that your penis muscle is smooth muscle, which means it responds to fight or flight. It’s on the autonomic nervous system.”

I explain that if the muscle of the penis is relaxed, it fills with blood and expands. It gets big and hard, and it traps the blood. But when the muscles of the penis are contracted, when they are tight, it squeezes out all the blood, like squeezing out a sponge. So the important thing to do if you want to have good erections is to get the muscles to relax. Relaxed muscle increases erections. I get them to understand that sildenafil and tadalafil are phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors: smooth-muscle relaxants. Instead of saying, “I need to take Viagra or Cialis because I’m broken,” it’s, “Oh hey honey, I need to take my muscle relaxants because my muscles aren’t working the way that they used to.”

In the future, I’ll go into what happens in erectile dysfunction. We’ll go into what can happen with erectile dysfunction and the many reasons why it happens. It’s getting them to understand that if we get the muscles to relax, you will have better erections. This is how the penis works. It’s why the medicine works. The patients will actually try the therapy and they’ll feel so much better about it. They’ll say, “Oh my gosh, this makes so much sense.” They work on their mental muscles to get the muscles of the penis to relax. Understanding anatomy and physiology helps them understand the treatments, which leads to better outcomes.

How about the female side? If a woman comes to see me reporting that she can’t have an orgasm, part of it is education and understanding the anatomy and physiology. The clitoris and the penis are exactly the same thing. The head of the clitoris and the head of the penis are the same. The clitoris has legs that go all the way down to the butt bone. So everyone is sitting on their genitals right now. The butt bones connect to the bottom of the clitoris or the bottom of the penis. They each have legs called crura. When you get patients to understand where their anatomy is and how it functions, they will then understand how to maximize their quality of life.

The clitoris has smooth muscle just like the penis. When that smooth muscle relaxes, it gorges with blood. When you stimulate it, it can lead to orgasm for most people. But, wait a minute. The clitoris is not inside the vagina. It’s outside. It’s behind the labia majora. If you follow the labia minora up, you get to the head of the clitoris. If patients understand that, they then will understand that penetration is not the way the majority of people orgasm.

I love pictures. I show everyone pictures in my office. They help patients to understand why vibration or outside stimulation on the vulva will allow orgasm to happen. And so instead of patients coming in saying, “I’m broken, I can’t orgasm from penetration,” or, “Dr. Rubin, I’m broken because I can’t get erections,” getting them to understand the anatomy and physiology helps them understand the treatment.

As we go forward, I’ll talk more about anatomy and physiology and how to increase the sexual health of our patients. For now though, please stop calling them private parts. Please use your understanding of anatomy and physiology to educate your patients to have better sexual health and higher quality of life. You may be the only clinician to ever do so, and it will make their life so much better.

Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor, department of urology, at Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today, I’d like to talk about private parts. You know: the genitals, down there.

I hate all of that. I really wish that we can get to a place where we can talk about genitals and sexual health the same way we do about high blood pressure and diabetes. In fact, when a new patient comes in and they get a new diagnosis of diabetes, you spend time explaining to them how their pancreas works. I don’t remember all the details because I’m a urologist. But you explain the details of diabetes, how it works, why therapy is important, and how it’s very important for quality of life.

I would like us to take that same understanding of anatomy and physiology and use it to explain to patients how their sexual health works because when they understand it, they then have the tools to make it better. I say to patients, “You have to know what parts you have in order to figure out how they drive, right?” We want them to drive better.

Let me give you an example. Many men come to see me with complaints of erectile dysfunction. They refuse to take sildenafil and tadalafil (Viagra and Cialis), saying, “Oh my gosh, those are magic pills. I won’t be a man if take them.” We all know that doesn’t make any sense. I explain to them how their penis works: “Your penis is a muscle. The muscle does two things. It contracts and it relaxes, just like your bicep. It’s just that your penis muscle is smooth muscle, which means it responds to fight or flight. It’s on the autonomic nervous system.”

I explain that if the muscle of the penis is relaxed, it fills with blood and expands. It gets big and hard, and it traps the blood. But when the muscles of the penis are contracted, when they are tight, it squeezes out all the blood, like squeezing out a sponge. So the important thing to do if you want to have good erections is to get the muscles to relax. Relaxed muscle increases erections. I get them to understand that sildenafil and tadalafil are phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors: smooth-muscle relaxants. Instead of saying, “I need to take Viagra or Cialis because I’m broken,” it’s, “Oh hey honey, I need to take my muscle relaxants because my muscles aren’t working the way that they used to.”

In the future, I’ll go into what happens in erectile dysfunction. We’ll go into what can happen with erectile dysfunction and the many reasons why it happens. It’s getting them to understand that if we get the muscles to relax, you will have better erections. This is how the penis works. It’s why the medicine works. The patients will actually try the therapy and they’ll feel so much better about it. They’ll say, “Oh my gosh, this makes so much sense.” They work on their mental muscles to get the muscles of the penis to relax. Understanding anatomy and physiology helps them understand the treatments, which leads to better outcomes.

How about the female side? If a woman comes to see me reporting that she can’t have an orgasm, part of it is education and understanding the anatomy and physiology. The clitoris and the penis are exactly the same thing. The head of the clitoris and the head of the penis are the same. The clitoris has legs that go all the way down to the butt bone. So everyone is sitting on their genitals right now. The butt bones connect to the bottom of the clitoris or the bottom of the penis. They each have legs called crura. When you get patients to understand where their anatomy is and how it functions, they will then understand how to maximize their quality of life.

The clitoris has smooth muscle just like the penis. When that smooth muscle relaxes, it gorges with blood. When you stimulate it, it can lead to orgasm for most people. But, wait a minute. The clitoris is not inside the vagina. It’s outside. It’s behind the labia majora. If you follow the labia minora up, you get to the head of the clitoris. If patients understand that, they then will understand that penetration is not the way the majority of people orgasm.

I love pictures. I show everyone pictures in my office. They help patients to understand why vibration or outside stimulation on the vulva will allow orgasm to happen. And so instead of patients coming in saying, “I’m broken, I can’t orgasm from penetration,” or, “Dr. Rubin, I’m broken because I can’t get erections,” getting them to understand the anatomy and physiology helps them understand the treatment.

As we go forward, I’ll talk more about anatomy and physiology and how to increase the sexual health of our patients. For now though, please stop calling them private parts. Please use your understanding of anatomy and physiology to educate your patients to have better sexual health and higher quality of life. You may be the only clinician to ever do so, and it will make their life so much better.

Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor, department of urology, at Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today, I’d like to talk about private parts. You know: the genitals, down there.

I hate all of that. I really wish that we can get to a place where we can talk about genitals and sexual health the same way we do about high blood pressure and diabetes. In fact, when a new patient comes in and they get a new diagnosis of diabetes, you spend time explaining to them how their pancreas works. I don’t remember all the details because I’m a urologist. But you explain the details of diabetes, how it works, why therapy is important, and how it’s very important for quality of life.

I would like us to take that same understanding of anatomy and physiology and use it to explain to patients how their sexual health works because when they understand it, they then have the tools to make it better. I say to patients, “You have to know what parts you have in order to figure out how they drive, right?” We want them to drive better.

Let me give you an example. Many men come to see me with complaints of erectile dysfunction. They refuse to take sildenafil and tadalafil (Viagra and Cialis), saying, “Oh my gosh, those are magic pills. I won’t be a man if take them.” We all know that doesn’t make any sense. I explain to them how their penis works: “Your penis is a muscle. The muscle does two things. It contracts and it relaxes, just like your bicep. It’s just that your penis muscle is smooth muscle, which means it responds to fight or flight. It’s on the autonomic nervous system.”

I explain that if the muscle of the penis is relaxed, it fills with blood and expands. It gets big and hard, and it traps the blood. But when the muscles of the penis are contracted, when they are tight, it squeezes out all the blood, like squeezing out a sponge. So the important thing to do if you want to have good erections is to get the muscles to relax. Relaxed muscle increases erections. I get them to understand that sildenafil and tadalafil are phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors: smooth-muscle relaxants. Instead of saying, “I need to take Viagra or Cialis because I’m broken,” it’s, “Oh hey honey, I need to take my muscle relaxants because my muscles aren’t working the way that they used to.”

In the future, I’ll go into what happens in erectile dysfunction. We’ll go into what can happen with erectile dysfunction and the many reasons why it happens. It’s getting them to understand that if we get the muscles to relax, you will have better erections. This is how the penis works. It’s why the medicine works. The patients will actually try the therapy and they’ll feel so much better about it. They’ll say, “Oh my gosh, this makes so much sense.” They work on their mental muscles to get the muscles of the penis to relax. Understanding anatomy and physiology helps them understand the treatments, which leads to better outcomes.

How about the female side? If a woman comes to see me reporting that she can’t have an orgasm, part of it is education and understanding the anatomy and physiology. The clitoris and the penis are exactly the same thing. The head of the clitoris and the head of the penis are the same. The clitoris has legs that go all the way down to the butt bone. So everyone is sitting on their genitals right now. The butt bones connect to the bottom of the clitoris or the bottom of the penis. They each have legs called crura. When you get patients to understand where their anatomy is and how it functions, they will then understand how to maximize their quality of life.

The clitoris has smooth muscle just like the penis. When that smooth muscle relaxes, it gorges with blood. When you stimulate it, it can lead to orgasm for most people. But, wait a minute. The clitoris is not inside the vagina. It’s outside. It’s behind the labia majora. If you follow the labia minora up, you get to the head of the clitoris. If patients understand that, they then will understand that penetration is not the way the majority of people orgasm.

I love pictures. I show everyone pictures in my office. They help patients to understand why vibration or outside stimulation on the vulva will allow orgasm to happen. And so instead of patients coming in saying, “I’m broken, I can’t orgasm from penetration,” or, “Dr. Rubin, I’m broken because I can’t get erections,” getting them to understand the anatomy and physiology helps them understand the treatment.

As we go forward, I’ll talk more about anatomy and physiology and how to increase the sexual health of our patients. For now though, please stop calling them private parts. Please use your understanding of anatomy and physiology to educate your patients to have better sexual health and higher quality of life. You may be the only clinician to ever do so, and it will make their life so much better.

Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor, department of urology, at Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More time spent on social media spent in ways defined as problematic was significantly associated with increased depressive symptoms during pregnancy, based on data from more than 600 individuals.

Depressive symptoms among pregnant women have risen in recent years, but the potential impact of social media use on depression in pregnancy has not been well studied, wrote Lotte Muskens, a PhD candidate at Tilburg (the Netherlands) University and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers surveyed 697 pregnant women aged 19-42 years who were part of a larger longitudinal prospective study (the Brabant Study) in the Netherlands. The mean age of the participants was 31 years; 96% were employed, 99% had a partner, and 71% had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Depressive symptoms were assessed at 12, 20, and 28 weeks of pregnancy using the Dutch version of the 10-item Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS).

SonerCdem/Thinkstock

The researchers categorized the participants into trajectories of depressive symptoms during pregnancy, with 489 identified as low stable (mean EDS scores 2.8-3.0), 183 as intermediate stable (mean EDS scores 8.4-8.8), and 25 as high stable (mean EDS scores 15.1-16.9).

Problematic SMU was identified using the six-item Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (BSMAS) at 12 weeks of pregnancy; scores ranged from 6 to 30, with higher scores representing more problematic SMU.

The mean BSMAS scores were 9.0, 10.7, and 12.6 for the low-stable, intermediate-stable, and high-stable depression groups, respectively.

Data on social media use (SMU) were collected at 12 weeks of pregnancy. Social media was defined as common platforms including Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Twitter, and YouTube.

SMU was defined in terms of intensity, measured by time and frequency. Time was measured by asking participants to list how many hours per day they used social media on a scale of 1 (no use of social media) to 9 (7 or more hours per day). Frequency was measured by asking how often participants visited the various social media platforms, on a scale of 1 (no use of social media) to 7 (five or more visits per day). Overall, the participants averaged 1.6 hours per day and 19.5 visits per week on SMU.

Increased time and frequency of SMU was significantly associated with increased odds of being in the high-stable group, compared with the low-stable group in an adjusted analysis (odds ratios, 1.51 and 1.05, respectively; P = .017 and P = .019, respectively).

In addition, problematic SMU (as defined by higher BSMAS scores) remained significantly associated with increased odds of belonging to the intermediate-stable or high-stable classes in an adjusted analysis (odds ratios, 1.17 and 1.31; P < .001 for both).

“While our results suggest that SMU can have negative consequences for pregnant women’s mental wellbeing, it is important to note that SMU during pregnancy may also be helpful for some pregnant women,” as many women, especially first-time mothers, find information and support through social media, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the variation in group sizes for depressive symptoms, reliance on self-reports, and the collection of data during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have affected the results, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and longitudinal design that allowed measurement of trajectories. More research is needed to determine causal relationships, but the data indicate an association between higher levels of depression during pregnancy and more intense and problematic SMU use, and health care providers should discuss SMU in addition to other risk factors for depression in pregnant women, the researchers concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

More time spent on social media spent in ways defined as problematic was significantly associated with increased depressive symptoms during pregnancy, based on data from more than 600 individuals.

Depressive symptoms among pregnant women have risen in recent years, but the potential impact of social media use on depression in pregnancy has not been well studied, wrote Lotte Muskens, a PhD candidate at Tilburg (the Netherlands) University and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers surveyed 697 pregnant women aged 19-42 years who were part of a larger longitudinal prospective study (the Brabant Study) in the Netherlands. The mean age of the participants was 31 years; 96% were employed, 99% had a partner, and 71% had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Depressive symptoms were assessed at 12, 20, and 28 weeks of pregnancy using the Dutch version of the 10-item Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS).

SonerCdem/Thinkstock

The researchers categorized the participants into trajectories of depressive symptoms during pregnancy, with 489 identified as low stable (mean EDS scores 2.8-3.0), 183 as intermediate stable (mean EDS scores 8.4-8.8), and 25 as high stable (mean EDS scores 15.1-16.9).

Problematic SMU was identified using the six-item Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (BSMAS) at 12 weeks of pregnancy; scores ranged from 6 to 30, with higher scores representing more problematic SMU.

The mean BSMAS scores were 9.0, 10.7, and 12.6 for the low-stable, intermediate-stable, and high-stable depression groups, respectively.

Data on social media use (SMU) were collected at 12 weeks of pregnancy. Social media was defined as common platforms including Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Twitter, and YouTube.

SMU was defined in terms of intensity, measured by time and frequency. Time was measured by asking participants to list how many hours per day they used social media on a scale of 1 (no use of social media) to 9 (7 or more hours per day). Frequency was measured by asking how often participants visited the various social media platforms, on a scale of 1 (no use of social media) to 7 (five or more visits per day). Overall, the participants averaged 1.6 hours per day and 19.5 visits per week on SMU.

Increased time and frequency of SMU was significantly associated with increased odds of being in the high-stable group, compared with the low-stable group in an adjusted analysis (odds ratios, 1.51 and 1.05, respectively; P = .017 and P = .019, respectively).

In addition, problematic SMU (as defined by higher BSMAS scores) remained significantly associated with increased odds of belonging to the intermediate-stable or high-stable classes in an adjusted analysis (odds ratios, 1.17 and 1.31; P < .001 for both).

“While our results suggest that SMU can have negative consequences for pregnant women’s mental wellbeing, it is important to note that SMU during pregnancy may also be helpful for some pregnant women,” as many women, especially first-time mothers, find information and support through social media, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the variation in group sizes for depressive symptoms, reliance on self-reports, and the collection of data during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have affected the results, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and longitudinal design that allowed measurement of trajectories. More research is needed to determine causal relationships, but the data indicate an association between higher levels of depression during pregnancy and more intense and problematic SMU use, and health care providers should discuss SMU in addition to other risk factors for depression in pregnant women, the researchers concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

More time spent on social media spent in ways defined as problematic was significantly associated with increased depressive symptoms during pregnancy, based on data from more than 600 individuals.

Depressive symptoms among pregnant women have risen in recent years, but the potential impact of social media use on depression in pregnancy has not been well studied, wrote Lotte Muskens, a PhD candidate at Tilburg (the Netherlands) University and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers surveyed 697 pregnant women aged 19-42 years who were part of a larger longitudinal prospective study (the Brabant Study) in the Netherlands. The mean age of the participants was 31 years; 96% were employed, 99% had a partner, and 71% had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Depressive symptoms were assessed at 12, 20, and 28 weeks of pregnancy using the Dutch version of the 10-item Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS).

SonerCdem/Thinkstock

The researchers categorized the participants into trajectories of depressive symptoms during pregnancy, with 489 identified as low stable (mean EDS scores 2.8-3.0), 183 as intermediate stable (mean EDS scores 8.4-8.8), and 25 as high stable (mean EDS scores 15.1-16.9).

Problematic SMU was identified using the six-item Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (BSMAS) at 12 weeks of pregnancy; scores ranged from 6 to 30, with higher scores representing more problematic SMU.

The mean BSMAS scores were 9.0, 10.7, and 12.6 for the low-stable, intermediate-stable, and high-stable depression groups, respectively.

Data on social media use (SMU) were collected at 12 weeks of pregnancy. Social media was defined as common platforms including Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Twitter, and YouTube.

SMU was defined in terms of intensity, measured by time and frequency. Time was measured by asking participants to list how many hours per day they used social media on a scale of 1 (no use of social media) to 9 (7 or more hours per day). Frequency was measured by asking how often participants visited the various social media platforms, on a scale of 1 (no use of social media) to 7 (five or more visits per day). Overall, the participants averaged 1.6 hours per day and 19.5 visits per week on SMU.

Increased time and frequency of SMU was significantly associated with increased odds of being in the high-stable group, compared with the low-stable group in an adjusted analysis (odds ratios, 1.51 and 1.05, respectively; P = .017 and P = .019, respectively).

In addition, problematic SMU (as defined by higher BSMAS scores) remained significantly associated with increased odds of belonging to the intermediate-stable or high-stable classes in an adjusted analysis (odds ratios, 1.17 and 1.31; P < .001 for both).

“While our results suggest that SMU can have negative consequences for pregnant women’s mental wellbeing, it is important to note that SMU during pregnancy may also be helpful for some pregnant women,” as many women, especially first-time mothers, find information and support through social media, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the variation in group sizes for depressive symptoms, reliance on self-reports, and the collection of data during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have affected the results, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and longitudinal design that allowed measurement of trajectories. More research is needed to determine causal relationships, but the data indicate an association between higher levels of depression during pregnancy and more intense and problematic SMU use, and health care providers should discuss SMU in addition to other risk factors for depression in pregnant women, the researchers concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade abortion rights last year, residency programs and ob.gyn. residents in states that ban or restrict abortions began scrambling to find alternative training sites to fulfill required clinical rotations in the procedure.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires ob.gyn. residents – unless they have a religious or moral exemption – to undergo abortion training to complete their programs. In states with bans or restrictions on family planning services or abortions, resident training must be received at institutions that are out of state.

Some residency programs are just beginning to coordinate out-of-state training, while others are further along in their offerings. There’s no formal matching process, and it remains unclear who will cover the costs of residents training elsewhere for a month.

These uncertainties, along with lack of coordination about malpractice, clinical rotations, and limited faculty, leave some program directors skeptical they’ll be able to keep up with demand for out-of-state slots. They are also wary of harming their own residents’ educational and clinical opportunities.

A 3rd-year ob.gyn. resident, who didn’t want to give her name or residency program for fear of backlash against her home institution, told this news organization that the Catholic-affiliated site is trying to avoid drawing attention to its minimal abortion training in a restrictive Midwest state. She knew after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson she’d have to look outside the program for more complex abortion training.

While she could learn dilation and curettage or other first-trimester or early–second-trimester procedures at the Midwest program, she said she couldn’t learn dilation and evacuation.

A mentor at her program connected her with a residency program at the University of New Mexico, where she recently started a 5-week family planning rotation. She is the first out-of-state resident hosted by UNM. Currently, UNM has six ob.gyn. residents per class year, for a total of 36, and six family planning fellows.

The ob.gyn. resident is staying with a friend at no cost, and her home institution still pays her salary. But she still must pay the mortgage on a home she can’t live in while away and misses being part of a community where she’s built a life over the past 2 years.

“There’s a part of you that’s just angry that you can’t do this for the women ... in your state,” she said. “Unfortunately, there isn’t a formalized program for ob.gyn. residents interested in more advanced training to be matched with a program that has the ability to offer that training. It’s very much a word-of-mouth and who-you-know situation. For people without those connections, it can be difficult to obtain this training unless they are interested in a formal fellowship.”

This year, about 1,500 ob.gyn. residents matched into 280 residency programs, according to the National Residency Matching Program.

Alyssa Colwill, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University and director of the ob.gyn. Ryan Residency Program at OHSU, estimated that 1,000 ob.gyn. residents per year will seek out-of-state abortion training. The estimate is based on the number of residents in programs in states with restrictions.

The Ryan Program, which began in 1999, helps ob.gyn. residency programs provide training in abortion and contraception care (family planning) as a required rotation.
 

Connecting programs

Ryan-affiliated residencies have been helping connect programs in states with abortion bans and restrictions to programs in states with more liberal laws.

Twelve of the 100 Ryan programs sent residents out of state in the past academic year, and 15 will follow this year. More are expected soon, said Kristin Simonson, MA, director of programs and operations at the Ryan Residency Program, headquartered at the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco.

Before the Dobbs decision, very few programs considered next steps to train ob.gyn. residents if abortions became illegal, Ms. Simonson said. “I think a lot of people just kind of were waiting and seeing ... and hoping that they wouldn’t have to make any drastic plans. It was hard to motivate people to have a plan B ready to go,” she said.

“Almost all of us working in this field had a really bad feeling,” said Courtney G. Forbis, MD, UNM assistant professor of ob.gyn. and Ryan Residency director. She and colleagues began planning for the future months ahead of the court decision. But the program wasn’t able to begin accepting out-of-state residents until now, she said. “We are trying to use this experience to see what we can accommodate in the future.”

OHSU also began planning for alternative training when it learned of the leaked Supreme Court decision, Dr. Colwill said. “We decided that we had the bandwidth and opportunity to train more individuals that were going to lose access to services and educational opportunities,” she said.

The university ran a 4-week test rotation last fall. So far, six residents and one fellow have come from out of the state, said Dr. Colwill. OHSU hopes to have 10 more in the coming year. The out-of-state learners will join 32 ob.gyn. residents and 12 fellows who were already in the program, she said.

To ease residents’ integration into an away program, the Ryan Program – along with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Innovating Education in Reproductive Health – recently began offering a free, web-based patient-centered abortion education curriculum.

The course supplements in-person clinical training in abortion care and prepares residents traveling and transitioning into another program to begin learning new skills on their first day, AnnaMarie Connolly, MD, ACOG’s chief of education and academic affairs, said in a prepared statement.
 

Training costs

Residents and their institutions also face additional costs. The home institution that loses a resident for a few weeks to a month has to determine how to cover the care not provided while they are away, Ms. Simonson said. Residents may incur expenses for transportation, housing, food, and other things while out of state.

OHSU covers transportation and housing through its abortion care and training fund, but there are other factors to consider, Dr. Colwill said. For example, the home and host programs have to coordinate licensing, malpractice, and line up rotation dates, she said.

Among other complications, UNM wasn’t able to set up an agreement so that its new resident could participate in a rotation at Planned Parenthood. “We have the clinical volume to accommodate another learner,” Dr. Forbis said. But the program has to balance resources, such as “trying to make sure we don’t have one faculty [member] assigned to too many learners at one time,” she said.

Given the logistic and financial challenges, programs may not be able to ensure that all residents who need abortion training receive it, said Ms. Simonson.

The Ryan Program, for instance, can’t help the more than 100 residency programs in states where abortions are currently illegal, she said.

UNM is trying to partner with specific programs, such as those in the state of Texas where abortion is banned, to train its residents each year, Dr. Forbis said.

OHSU also will look for opportunities to train as many residents as possible, Dr. Colwill said, “but I don’t think we’ll ever be able to fill that gap of 1,000 residents that need this training.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade abortion rights last year, residency programs and ob.gyn. residents in states that ban or restrict abortions began scrambling to find alternative training sites to fulfill required clinical rotations in the procedure.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires ob.gyn. residents – unless they have a religious or moral exemption – to undergo abortion training to complete their programs. In states with bans or restrictions on family planning services or abortions, resident training must be received at institutions that are out of state.

Some residency programs are just beginning to coordinate out-of-state training, while others are further along in their offerings. There’s no formal matching process, and it remains unclear who will cover the costs of residents training elsewhere for a month.

These uncertainties, along with lack of coordination about malpractice, clinical rotations, and limited faculty, leave some program directors skeptical they’ll be able to keep up with demand for out-of-state slots. They are also wary of harming their own residents’ educational and clinical opportunities.

A 3rd-year ob.gyn. resident, who didn’t want to give her name or residency program for fear of backlash against her home institution, told this news organization that the Catholic-affiliated site is trying to avoid drawing attention to its minimal abortion training in a restrictive Midwest state. She knew after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson she’d have to look outside the program for more complex abortion training.

While she could learn dilation and curettage or other first-trimester or early–second-trimester procedures at the Midwest program, she said she couldn’t learn dilation and evacuation.

A mentor at her program connected her with a residency program at the University of New Mexico, where she recently started a 5-week family planning rotation. She is the first out-of-state resident hosted by UNM. Currently, UNM has six ob.gyn. residents per class year, for a total of 36, and six family planning fellows.

The ob.gyn. resident is staying with a friend at no cost, and her home institution still pays her salary. But she still must pay the mortgage on a home she can’t live in while away and misses being part of a community where she’s built a life over the past 2 years.

“There’s a part of you that’s just angry that you can’t do this for the women ... in your state,” she said. “Unfortunately, there isn’t a formalized program for ob.gyn. residents interested in more advanced training to be matched with a program that has the ability to offer that training. It’s very much a word-of-mouth and who-you-know situation. For people without those connections, it can be difficult to obtain this training unless they are interested in a formal fellowship.”

This year, about 1,500 ob.gyn. residents matched into 280 residency programs, according to the National Residency Matching Program.

Alyssa Colwill, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University and director of the ob.gyn. Ryan Residency Program at OHSU, estimated that 1,000 ob.gyn. residents per year will seek out-of-state abortion training. The estimate is based on the number of residents in programs in states with restrictions.

The Ryan Program, which began in 1999, helps ob.gyn. residency programs provide training in abortion and contraception care (family planning) as a required rotation.
 

Connecting programs

Ryan-affiliated residencies have been helping connect programs in states with abortion bans and restrictions to programs in states with more liberal laws.

Twelve of the 100 Ryan programs sent residents out of state in the past academic year, and 15 will follow this year. More are expected soon, said Kristin Simonson, MA, director of programs and operations at the Ryan Residency Program, headquartered at the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco.

Before the Dobbs decision, very few programs considered next steps to train ob.gyn. residents if abortions became illegal, Ms. Simonson said. “I think a lot of people just kind of were waiting and seeing ... and hoping that they wouldn’t have to make any drastic plans. It was hard to motivate people to have a plan B ready to go,” she said.

“Almost all of us working in this field had a really bad feeling,” said Courtney G. Forbis, MD, UNM assistant professor of ob.gyn. and Ryan Residency director. She and colleagues began planning for the future months ahead of the court decision. But the program wasn’t able to begin accepting out-of-state residents until now, she said. “We are trying to use this experience to see what we can accommodate in the future.”

OHSU also began planning for alternative training when it learned of the leaked Supreme Court decision, Dr. Colwill said. “We decided that we had the bandwidth and opportunity to train more individuals that were going to lose access to services and educational opportunities,” she said.

The university ran a 4-week test rotation last fall. So far, six residents and one fellow have come from out of the state, said Dr. Colwill. OHSU hopes to have 10 more in the coming year. The out-of-state learners will join 32 ob.gyn. residents and 12 fellows who were already in the program, she said.

To ease residents’ integration into an away program, the Ryan Program – along with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Innovating Education in Reproductive Health – recently began offering a free, web-based patient-centered abortion education curriculum.

The course supplements in-person clinical training in abortion care and prepares residents traveling and transitioning into another program to begin learning new skills on their first day, AnnaMarie Connolly, MD, ACOG’s chief of education and academic affairs, said in a prepared statement.
 

Training costs

Residents and their institutions also face additional costs. The home institution that loses a resident for a few weeks to a month has to determine how to cover the care not provided while they are away, Ms. Simonson said. Residents may incur expenses for transportation, housing, food, and other things while out of state.

OHSU covers transportation and housing through its abortion care and training fund, but there are other factors to consider, Dr. Colwill said. For example, the home and host programs have to coordinate licensing, malpractice, and line up rotation dates, she said.

Among other complications, UNM wasn’t able to set up an agreement so that its new resident could participate in a rotation at Planned Parenthood. “We have the clinical volume to accommodate another learner,” Dr. Forbis said. But the program has to balance resources, such as “trying to make sure we don’t have one faculty [member] assigned to too many learners at one time,” she said.

Given the logistic and financial challenges, programs may not be able to ensure that all residents who need abortion training receive it, said Ms. Simonson.

The Ryan Program, for instance, can’t help the more than 100 residency programs in states where abortions are currently illegal, she said.

UNM is trying to partner with specific programs, such as those in the state of Texas where abortion is banned, to train its residents each year, Dr. Forbis said.

OHSU also will look for opportunities to train as many residents as possible, Dr. Colwill said, “but I don’t think we’ll ever be able to fill that gap of 1,000 residents that need this training.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade abortion rights last year, residency programs and ob.gyn. residents in states that ban or restrict abortions began scrambling to find alternative training sites to fulfill required clinical rotations in the procedure.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires ob.gyn. residents – unless they have a religious or moral exemption – to undergo abortion training to complete their programs. In states with bans or restrictions on family planning services or abortions, resident training must be received at institutions that are out of state.

Some residency programs are just beginning to coordinate out-of-state training, while others are further along in their offerings. There’s no formal matching process, and it remains unclear who will cover the costs of residents training elsewhere for a month.

These uncertainties, along with lack of coordination about malpractice, clinical rotations, and limited faculty, leave some program directors skeptical they’ll be able to keep up with demand for out-of-state slots. They are also wary of harming their own residents’ educational and clinical opportunities.

A 3rd-year ob.gyn. resident, who didn’t want to give her name or residency program for fear of backlash against her home institution, told this news organization that the Catholic-affiliated site is trying to avoid drawing attention to its minimal abortion training in a restrictive Midwest state. She knew after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson she’d have to look outside the program for more complex abortion training.

While she could learn dilation and curettage or other first-trimester or early–second-trimester procedures at the Midwest program, she said she couldn’t learn dilation and evacuation.

A mentor at her program connected her with a residency program at the University of New Mexico, where she recently started a 5-week family planning rotation. She is the first out-of-state resident hosted by UNM. Currently, UNM has six ob.gyn. residents per class year, for a total of 36, and six family planning fellows.

The ob.gyn. resident is staying with a friend at no cost, and her home institution still pays her salary. But she still must pay the mortgage on a home she can’t live in while away and misses being part of a community where she’s built a life over the past 2 years.

“There’s a part of you that’s just angry that you can’t do this for the women ... in your state,” she said. “Unfortunately, there isn’t a formalized program for ob.gyn. residents interested in more advanced training to be matched with a program that has the ability to offer that training. It’s very much a word-of-mouth and who-you-know situation. For people without those connections, it can be difficult to obtain this training unless they are interested in a formal fellowship.”

This year, about 1,500 ob.gyn. residents matched into 280 residency programs, according to the National Residency Matching Program.

Alyssa Colwill, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University and director of the ob.gyn. Ryan Residency Program at OHSU, estimated that 1,000 ob.gyn. residents per year will seek out-of-state abortion training. The estimate is based on the number of residents in programs in states with restrictions.

The Ryan Program, which began in 1999, helps ob.gyn. residency programs provide training in abortion and contraception care (family planning) as a required rotation.
 

Connecting programs

Ryan-affiliated residencies have been helping connect programs in states with abortion bans and restrictions to programs in states with more liberal laws.

Twelve of the 100 Ryan programs sent residents out of state in the past academic year, and 15 will follow this year. More are expected soon, said Kristin Simonson, MA, director of programs and operations at the Ryan Residency Program, headquartered at the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco.

Before the Dobbs decision, very few programs considered next steps to train ob.gyn. residents if abortions became illegal, Ms. Simonson said. “I think a lot of people just kind of were waiting and seeing ... and hoping that they wouldn’t have to make any drastic plans. It was hard to motivate people to have a plan B ready to go,” she said.

“Almost all of us working in this field had a really bad feeling,” said Courtney G. Forbis, MD, UNM assistant professor of ob.gyn. and Ryan Residency director. She and colleagues began planning for the future months ahead of the court decision. But the program wasn’t able to begin accepting out-of-state residents until now, she said. “We are trying to use this experience to see what we can accommodate in the future.”

OHSU also began planning for alternative training when it learned of the leaked Supreme Court decision, Dr. Colwill said. “We decided that we had the bandwidth and opportunity to train more individuals that were going to lose access to services and educational opportunities,” she said.

The university ran a 4-week test rotation last fall. So far, six residents and one fellow have come from out of the state, said Dr. Colwill. OHSU hopes to have 10 more in the coming year. The out-of-state learners will join 32 ob.gyn. residents and 12 fellows who were already in the program, she said.

To ease residents’ integration into an away program, the Ryan Program – along with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Innovating Education in Reproductive Health – recently began offering a free, web-based patient-centered abortion education curriculum.

The course supplements in-person clinical training in abortion care and prepares residents traveling and transitioning into another program to begin learning new skills on their first day, AnnaMarie Connolly, MD, ACOG’s chief of education and academic affairs, said in a prepared statement.
 

Training costs

Residents and their institutions also face additional costs. The home institution that loses a resident for a few weeks to a month has to determine how to cover the care not provided while they are away, Ms. Simonson said. Residents may incur expenses for transportation, housing, food, and other things while out of state.

OHSU covers transportation and housing through its abortion care and training fund, but there are other factors to consider, Dr. Colwill said. For example, the home and host programs have to coordinate licensing, malpractice, and line up rotation dates, she said.

Among other complications, UNM wasn’t able to set up an agreement so that its new resident could participate in a rotation at Planned Parenthood. “We have the clinical volume to accommodate another learner,” Dr. Forbis said. But the program has to balance resources, such as “trying to make sure we don’t have one faculty [member] assigned to too many learners at one time,” she said.

Given the logistic and financial challenges, programs may not be able to ensure that all residents who need abortion training receive it, said Ms. Simonson.

The Ryan Program, for instance, can’t help the more than 100 residency programs in states where abortions are currently illegal, she said.

UNM is trying to partner with specific programs, such as those in the state of Texas where abortion is banned, to train its residents each year, Dr. Forbis said.

OHSU also will look for opportunities to train as many residents as possible, Dr. Colwill said, “but I don’t think we’ll ever be able to fill that gap of 1,000 residents that need this training.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PURPOSE

This project aims to describe the demographics of Veterans diagnosed with breast and gynecologic cancers and assess differences compared to the general population.

BACKGROUND

With an increasing number of women Veterans enrolling in the VA, it is crucial for oncologists to be prepared to provide care for VeterS32 • SEPTEMBER 2023 www.mdedge.com/fedprac/avaho NOTES ans diagnosed with breast and gynecologic cancers. Despite the rising incidence of these cancers among Veterans, there is limited characterization of the demographic profile of this population. Understanding the unique characteristics of Veterans with these malignancies, distinct from the general population, is essential for the Veterans Administration (VA) to develop programs and enhance care for these patients.

METHODS/DATA ANALYSIS

Consult records from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022, were analyzed to identify Veterans with newly diagnosed breast, uterine, ovarian, cervical, and vulvovaginal cancer. Demographic were evaluated. Data on the general population were obtained data from SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) 19 database for 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 3,304 Veterans diagnosed with breast cancer and 918 Veterans with gynecologic cancers were identified (uterine, n = 365; cervical, n = 344, ovarian, n = 177; vulvovaginal, n = 32). Veterans were found to be younger than the general population, with a mean age at diagnosis of 59 for Veterans with breast cancer to 63 for non-veterans. Among those with gynecologic cancers, the mean age at diagnosis for Veterans was 55 compared to 61 for non-veterans. Male breast cancer cases were more prevalent among Veterans, accounting for 11% in the VA compared to 1% in SEER. The Veteran cohort also displayed a higher proportion of Black patients, with 30% of breast cancer cases in the VA being Black compared to 12% in SEER.

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS

Veterans diagnosed with breast and gynecologic cancers exhibit unique demographic characteristics compared to the general population. They tend to be younger and have a higher representation of Black patients. The incidence of male breast cancer is notably higher among Veterans. As the prevalence of these cancer types continue to rise among Veterans, it is vital for oncologists to be aware of and adequately address the unique health needs of this population. These findings emphasize the importance of tailored strategies and programs to provide optimal care for Veterans with breast and gynecologic cancers.

PURPOSE

This project aims to describe the demographics of Veterans diagnosed with breast and gynecologic cancers and assess differences compared to the general population.

BACKGROUND

With an increasing number of women Veterans enrolling in the VA, it is crucial for oncologists to be prepared to provide care for VeterS32 • SEPTEMBER 2023 www.mdedge.com/fedprac/avaho NOTES ans diagnosed with breast and gynecologic cancers. Despite the rising incidence of these cancers among Veterans, there is limited characterization of the demographic profile of this population. Understanding the unique characteristics of Veterans with these malignancies, distinct from the general population, is essential for the Veterans Administration (VA) to develop programs and enhance care for these patients.

METHODS/DATA ANALYSIS

Consult records from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022, were analyzed to identify Veterans with newly diagnosed breast, uterine, ovarian, cervical, and vulvovaginal cancer. Demographic were evaluated. Data on the general population were obtained data from SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) 19 database for 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 3,304 Veterans diagnosed with breast cancer and 918 Veterans with gynecologic cancers were identified (uterine, n = 365; cervical, n = 344, ovarian, n = 177; vulvovaginal, n = 32). Veterans were found to be younger than the general population, with a mean age at diagnosis of 59 for Veterans with breast cancer to 63 for non-veterans. Among those with gynecologic cancers, the mean age at diagnosis for Veterans was 55 compared to 61 for non-veterans. Male breast cancer cases were more prevalent among Veterans, accounting for 11% in the VA compared to 1% in SEER. The Veteran cohort also displayed a higher proportion of Black patients, with 30% of breast cancer cases in the VA being Black compared to 12% in SEER.

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS

Veterans diagnosed with breast and gynecologic cancers exhibit unique demographic characteristics compared to the general population. They tend to be younger and have a higher representation of Black patients. The incidence of male breast cancer is notably higher among Veterans. As the prevalence of these cancer types continue to rise among Veterans, it is vital for oncologists to be aware of and adequately address the unique health needs of this population. These findings emphasize the importance of tailored strategies and programs to provide optimal care for Veterans with breast and gynecologic cancers.

PURPOSE

This project aims to describe the demographics of Veterans diagnosed with breast and gynecologic cancers and assess differences compared to the general population.

BACKGROUND

With an increasing number of women Veterans enrolling in the VA, it is crucial for oncologists to be prepared to provide care for VeterS32 • SEPTEMBER 2023 www.mdedge.com/fedprac/avaho NOTES ans diagnosed with breast and gynecologic cancers. Despite the rising incidence of these cancers among Veterans, there is limited characterization of the demographic profile of this population. Understanding the unique characteristics of Veterans with these malignancies, distinct from the general population, is essential for the Veterans Administration (VA) to develop programs and enhance care for these patients.

METHODS/DATA ANALYSIS

Consult records from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022, were analyzed to identify Veterans with newly diagnosed breast, uterine, ovarian, cervical, and vulvovaginal cancer. Demographic were evaluated. Data on the general population were obtained data from SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) 19 database for 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 3,304 Veterans diagnosed with breast cancer and 918 Veterans with gynecologic cancers were identified (uterine, n = 365; cervical, n = 344, ovarian, n = 177; vulvovaginal, n = 32). Veterans were found to be younger than the general population, with a mean age at diagnosis of 59 for Veterans with breast cancer to 63 for non-veterans. Among those with gynecologic cancers, the mean age at diagnosis for Veterans was 55 compared to 61 for non-veterans. Male breast cancer cases were more prevalent among Veterans, accounting for 11% in the VA compared to 1% in SEER. The Veteran cohort also displayed a higher proportion of Black patients, with 30% of breast cancer cases in the VA being Black compared to 12% in SEER.

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS

Veterans diagnosed with breast and gynecologic cancers exhibit unique demographic characteristics compared to the general population. They tend to be younger and have a higher representation of Black patients. The incidence of male breast cancer is notably higher among Veterans. As the prevalence of these cancer types continue to rise among Veterans, it is vital for oncologists to be aware of and adequately address the unique health needs of this population. These findings emphasize the importance of tailored strategies and programs to provide optimal care for Veterans with breast and gynecologic cancers.

BACKGROUND

The Breast and Gynecologic System of Excellence (BGSOE) program has developed a workflow support tool using health information technology to assist clinicians, coordinators and stakeholders in identifying, tracking and supporting Veterans with breast and gynecological cancers. This tool was designed and implemented through a novel process that involved clarifying program aims, defining workflows in process delivery diagrams, and identifying data, analytic products, and user needs. To determine the optimal tool for the program, a comparative usability evaluation was conducted, comparing the new workflow support tool with a previous tool that shared identical aims but utilized a different approach.

METHODS

Usability evaluation employed the System Usability Scale (SUS) and measured acceptance using modified items from a validated instrument used in a national survey of electronic health records. Task efficiency was evaluated based on time taken and the number of clicks required to complete tasks.

RESULTS

Eight healthcare professionals with experience in the BGSOE program or similar programs in the VA participated in the usability evaluation. This group comprised physicians (38%), clinical pharmacist (25%), health care coordinators (25%), and registered nurse (12%). The workflow support tool achieved an impressive SUS score of 89.06, with acceptance scores of 93% (positive statements) and 6% (negative statements), outperforming the standard tool, which scored score of 57.5 on the SUS and had acceptance scores of 53% (positive statements) and 50% (negative statements). In the comparative ranking, 100% of the users preferred the workflow support tool, citing its userfriendliness, intuitiveness, and ease of use. On average, users completed all tasks using the workflow support tool in 8 minutes with 31 clicks, while the standard tool required 18 minutes and 124 clicks.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of a workflow support tool in the design of health information technology interventions leads to improved usability, efficiency, and adoption. Based on the positive results from the usability evaluation, the BGSOE program has chosen to adopt the workflow support tool as its preferred health information technology solution.

BACKGROUND

The Breast and Gynecologic System of Excellence (BGSOE) program has developed a workflow support tool using health information technology to assist clinicians, coordinators and stakeholders in identifying, tracking and supporting Veterans with breast and gynecological cancers. This tool was designed and implemented through a novel process that involved clarifying program aims, defining workflows in process delivery diagrams, and identifying data, analytic products, and user needs. To determine the optimal tool for the program, a comparative usability evaluation was conducted, comparing the new workflow support tool with a previous tool that shared identical aims but utilized a different approach.

METHODS

Usability evaluation employed the System Usability Scale (SUS) and measured acceptance using modified items from a validated instrument used in a national survey of electronic health records. Task efficiency was evaluated based on time taken and the number of clicks required to complete tasks.

RESULTS

Eight healthcare professionals with experience in the BGSOE program or similar programs in the VA participated in the usability evaluation. This group comprised physicians (38%), clinical pharmacist (25%), health care coordinators (25%), and registered nurse (12%). The workflow support tool achieved an impressive SUS score of 89.06, with acceptance scores of 93% (positive statements) and 6% (negative statements), outperforming the standard tool, which scored score of 57.5 on the SUS and had acceptance scores of 53% (positive statements) and 50% (negative statements). In the comparative ranking, 100% of the users preferred the workflow support tool, citing its userfriendliness, intuitiveness, and ease of use. On average, users completed all tasks using the workflow support tool in 8 minutes with 31 clicks, while the standard tool required 18 minutes and 124 clicks.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of a workflow support tool in the design of health information technology interventions leads to improved usability, efficiency, and adoption. Based on the positive results from the usability evaluation, the BGSOE program has chosen to adopt the workflow support tool as its preferred health information technology solution.

BACKGROUND

The Breast and Gynecologic System of Excellence (BGSOE) program has developed a workflow support tool using health information technology to assist clinicians, coordinators and stakeholders in identifying, tracking and supporting Veterans with breast and gynecological cancers. This tool was designed and implemented through a novel process that involved clarifying program aims, defining workflows in process delivery diagrams, and identifying data, analytic products, and user needs. To determine the optimal tool for the program, a comparative usability evaluation was conducted, comparing the new workflow support tool with a previous tool that shared identical aims but utilized a different approach.

METHODS

Usability evaluation employed the System Usability Scale (SUS) and measured acceptance using modified items from a validated instrument used in a national survey of electronic health records. Task efficiency was evaluated based on time taken and the number of clicks required to complete tasks.

RESULTS

Eight healthcare professionals with experience in the BGSOE program or similar programs in the VA participated in the usability evaluation. This group comprised physicians (38%), clinical pharmacist (25%), health care coordinators (25%), and registered nurse (12%). The workflow support tool achieved an impressive SUS score of 89.06, with acceptance scores of 93% (positive statements) and 6% (negative statements), outperforming the standard tool, which scored score of 57.5 on the SUS and had acceptance scores of 53% (positive statements) and 50% (negative statements). In the comparative ranking, 100% of the users preferred the workflow support tool, citing its userfriendliness, intuitiveness, and ease of use. On average, users completed all tasks using the workflow support tool in 8 minutes with 31 clicks, while the standard tool required 18 minutes and 124 clicks.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of a workflow support tool in the design of health information technology interventions leads to improved usability, efficiency, and adoption. Based on the positive results from the usability evaluation, the BGSOE program has chosen to adopt the workflow support tool as its preferred health information technology solution.

Nurses were less likely than clinicians to be sympathetic to pregnant women using opioids, based on data from 119 surveys.

University of Illinois, Chicago

Opioid use disorder among pregnant women continues to rise, and untreated opioid use is associated with complications including preterm delivery, placental abruption, and stillbirth, wrote Alexis Braverman, MD, of the University of Illinois, Chicago, and colleagues. However, many perinatal women who seek care and medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) report stigma that limits their ability to reduce these risks.

In a study published in the American Journal on Addictions , the researchers conducted an anonymous survey of 132 health care workers at six outpatient locations and a main hospital of an urban medical center. The survey was designed to assess attitudes toward pregnant women who were using opioids. The 119 complete responses in the final analysis included 40 nurses and 79 clinicians across ob.gyn., family medicine, and pediatrics. A total of 19 respondents were waivered to prescribe outpatient buprenorphine for OUD.

Nurses were significantly less likely than clinicians to agree that OUD is a chronic illness, to feel sympathy for women who use opioids during pregnancy, and to see pregnancy as an opportunity for behavior change (P = .000, P = .003, and P = .001, respectively).

Overall, family medicine providers and clinicians with 11-20 years of practice experience were significantly more sympathetic to pregnant women who used opioids, compared with providers from other departments and with fewer years of practice (P = .025 and P = .039, respectively).

Providers in pediatrics departments were significantly more likely than those from other departments to agree strongly with feeling anger at pregnant women who use opioids (P = .009), and that these women should not be allowed to parent (P = .013). However, providers in pediatrics were significantly more comfortable than those in other departments with discussing the involvement of social services in patient care (P = .020) and with counseling patients on neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome, known as NOWS (P = .027).

“We hypothesize that nurses who perform more acute, inpatient work rather than outpatient work may not be exposed as frequently to a patient’s personal progress on their journey with OUD,” and therefore might not be exposed to the rewarding experiences and progress made by patients, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

However, the overall low level of comfort in discussing NOWS and social service involvement across provider groups (one-quarter for pediatrics, one-fifth for ob.gyn, and one-sixth for family medicine) highlights the need for further training in this area, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for responder bias; however, the results identify a need for greater training in stigma reduction and in counseling families on issues related to OUD, the researchers said. More studies are needed to examine attitude changes after the implementation of stigma reduction strategies, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nurses were less likely than clinicians to be sympathetic to pregnant women using opioids, based on data from 119 surveys.

University of Illinois, Chicago

Opioid use disorder among pregnant women continues to rise, and untreated opioid use is associated with complications including preterm delivery, placental abruption, and stillbirth, wrote Alexis Braverman, MD, of the University of Illinois, Chicago, and colleagues. However, many perinatal women who seek care and medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) report stigma that limits their ability to reduce these risks.

In a study published in the American Journal on Addictions , the researchers conducted an anonymous survey of 132 health care workers at six outpatient locations and a main hospital of an urban medical center. The survey was designed to assess attitudes toward pregnant women who were using opioids. The 119 complete responses in the final analysis included 40 nurses and 79 clinicians across ob.gyn., family medicine, and pediatrics. A total of 19 respondents were waivered to prescribe outpatient buprenorphine for OUD.

Nurses were significantly less likely than clinicians to agree that OUD is a chronic illness, to feel sympathy for women who use opioids during pregnancy, and to see pregnancy as an opportunity for behavior change (P = .000, P = .003, and P = .001, respectively).

Overall, family medicine providers and clinicians with 11-20 years of practice experience were significantly more sympathetic to pregnant women who used opioids, compared with providers from other departments and with fewer years of practice (P = .025 and P = .039, respectively).

Providers in pediatrics departments were significantly more likely than those from other departments to agree strongly with feeling anger at pregnant women who use opioids (P = .009), and that these women should not be allowed to parent (P = .013). However, providers in pediatrics were significantly more comfortable than those in other departments with discussing the involvement of social services in patient care (P = .020) and with counseling patients on neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome, known as NOWS (P = .027).

“We hypothesize that nurses who perform more acute, inpatient work rather than outpatient work may not be exposed as frequently to a patient’s personal progress on their journey with OUD,” and therefore might not be exposed to the rewarding experiences and progress made by patients, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

However, the overall low level of comfort in discussing NOWS and social service involvement across provider groups (one-quarter for pediatrics, one-fifth for ob.gyn, and one-sixth for family medicine) highlights the need for further training in this area, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for responder bias; however, the results identify a need for greater training in stigma reduction and in counseling families on issues related to OUD, the researchers said. More studies are needed to examine attitude changes after the implementation of stigma reduction strategies, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nurses were less likely than clinicians to be sympathetic to pregnant women using opioids, based on data from 119 surveys.

University of Illinois, Chicago

Opioid use disorder among pregnant women continues to rise, and untreated opioid use is associated with complications including preterm delivery, placental abruption, and stillbirth, wrote Alexis Braverman, MD, of the University of Illinois, Chicago, and colleagues. However, many perinatal women who seek care and medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) report stigma that limits their ability to reduce these risks.

In a study published in the American Journal on Addictions , the researchers conducted an anonymous survey of 132 health care workers at six outpatient locations and a main hospital of an urban medical center. The survey was designed to assess attitudes toward pregnant women who were using opioids. The 119 complete responses in the final analysis included 40 nurses and 79 clinicians across ob.gyn., family medicine, and pediatrics. A total of 19 respondents were waivered to prescribe outpatient buprenorphine for OUD.

Nurses were significantly less likely than clinicians to agree that OUD is a chronic illness, to feel sympathy for women who use opioids during pregnancy, and to see pregnancy as an opportunity for behavior change (P = .000, P = .003, and P = .001, respectively).

Overall, family medicine providers and clinicians with 11-20 years of practice experience were significantly more sympathetic to pregnant women who used opioids, compared with providers from other departments and with fewer years of practice (P = .025 and P = .039, respectively).

Providers in pediatrics departments were significantly more likely than those from other departments to agree strongly with feeling anger at pregnant women who use opioids (P = .009), and that these women should not be allowed to parent (P = .013). However, providers in pediatrics were significantly more comfortable than those in other departments with discussing the involvement of social services in patient care (P = .020) and with counseling patients on neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome, known as NOWS (P = .027).

“We hypothesize that nurses who perform more acute, inpatient work rather than outpatient work may not be exposed as frequently to a patient’s personal progress on their journey with OUD,” and therefore might not be exposed to the rewarding experiences and progress made by patients, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

However, the overall low level of comfort in discussing NOWS and social service involvement across provider groups (one-quarter for pediatrics, one-fifth for ob.gyn, and one-sixth for family medicine) highlights the need for further training in this area, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for responder bias; however, the results identify a need for greater training in stigma reduction and in counseling families on issues related to OUD, the researchers said. More studies are needed to examine attitude changes after the implementation of stigma reduction strategies, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.