Search results for: Shane R. Jackson

Authors: Maggie Hall, Haley O'Neill

Abstract:

The U.S. faces a severe shortage of abortion providers, exacerbated by the June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. Midwives, especially certified nurse midwives, are well-positioned to fill this gap in abortion care. However, a lack of clinical education and training prevents midwives from exercising their full scope of practice. National and international organizations that set obstetrics and midwifery education standards, including the International Confederation of Midwives, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and American Public Health Association, call for expansion of midwifery-managed abortion care through the first trimester. In the U.S., midwifery programs are accredited based on compliance with ACME standards and compliance is a prerequisite for the American Midwifery Certification Board exams. We conducted a literature review of studies in the last five years regarding abortion didactic and clinical education barriers via CINAHL, EBSCO and PubMed database reviews. We gave preference for primary sources within the last five years; however, due to the rapid changes in abortion education and access, we also included literature from 2012-2022. We evaluated ACME-accredited programs in relation to their geography within abortion-protected or restricted states and assessed state-specific barriers to abortion care education and provision as clinical students. There are 43 AMCB-accredited midwifery schools in 28 states across the U.S. Twenty schools (47%) are in the 15 states in which advanced practice clinicians can provide non-surgical abortion care, such as medication abortion and MVA procedures. Twenty-four schools (56%) are in the 16 states in which abortion care provision is restricted to Licensed Physicians and cannot offer in-state clinical training opportunities for midwifery students. Six schools are in the five states in which abortion is completely banned and are geographically concentrated in the southernmost region of the U.S., including Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas. Subsequently, these programs cannot offer in-state clinical training opportunities for midwifery students. Notably, there are seven ACME programs in six states that do not restrict abortion access by gestational age, including Colorado, Connecticut, Washington, D.C., New Jersey, New Mexico, and Oregon. These programs may be uniquely positioned for midwifery involvement in abortion care beyond the first trimester. While the following states don’t house ACME programs, abortion care can be provided by advanced practice clinicians in Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, and Vermont, offering clinical placement and/or new ACME program development opportunities. We identify existing barriers to clinical education and training opportunities for midwifery-managed abortion care, which are both geographic and institutional in nature. We recommend expansion and standardization of clinical education and training opportunities for midwifery-managed abortion care in ACME-accredited programs to improve access to abortion care. Midwifery programs and teaching hospitals need to expand education, training, and residency opportunities for midwifery students to strengthen access to midwife-managed abortion care. ACNM and ACME should re-evaluate accreditation criteria and the implications of ACME programs in states where students are not able to learn abortion care in clinical contexts due to state-specific abortion restrictions.

Keywords: midwifery education, abortion, abortion education, abortion access

Procedia PDF Downloads 73

Authors: Marina Gold, Yves Jackson, David Parrat

Abstract:

The high predominance of Latin American migrants in Geneva from countries where Chagas disease is endemic (Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia) is increasing the incidence of chronic Chagas-related problems, especially cardiovascular complications. The precarious migratory status of what are mostly undocumented migrants complicates access to health and affects patients’ and doctors’ health perceptions regarding screening, treatment and monitoring of Chagas-related health concerns. This project results from a 3 year collaboration between the Geneva University Hospital and the NGO Mundo Sano to understand the following questions: 1) how do Latin American migrants perceive their health? 2) What do they understand from Chagas disease? 3) Are patients’ and doctors’ health perceptions similar or do they have competing agendas? This paper aims to present the results of a long-term study that interrogates health perceptions among Latin American migrants in Geneva. The first phase consisted in completing surveys at three community screening events (2016, 2017. 2018), and the results of these surveys reveal the subordination of the importance of health to that of having met economic family obligation. That is, health is important only when it becomes an impediment to economic gain. The contradictory result emerged that people are aware of the importance of health prevention in order to ensure long-term health, but they do not always have agency over their life-style habits (healthy food, regular exercise, emotional stability). The second phase of the research collected open-ended interviews with selected participants, in order to explore in more detail how Latin American migrants deal with Chagas in a different socio-political and economic context to that of endemic countries. These interviews (5 in total) reveal mixed methods of managing health: social networks, access to health care transnationally (in Geneva, Spain and back in their home country), and different valuations of health problems in each situation. The third phase consisted in observations of doctor-patient consultations and further extended interviews with patients to determine doctor/patient health perceptions around Chagas disease. This phase is ongoing, but it has yielded preliminarily observations regarding the expectations that patients’ have of doctors, and the understanding of doctors’ to patients’ complex situations. Positive and complementary health perceptions include patients’ feeling that doctors in Geneva are more understanding, more knowledgeable and less racist than those in their home country, who do not provide detailed information about Chagas or its treatment and discriminate against them for being indigenous or from poor rural areas, enabling a better communication between doctors and patients. Possible conflicting health perceptions include patients addressing their health concerns more holistically and encountering the specialist’s limitations to only treating one health concern, given time limitations and lack of competition with their colleagues (the general practitioner that referred the patient, for example). The implications of this study extend the case of Chagas disease in Geneva and is relevant for all chronic concerns and migratory contexts of precarity.

Keywords: chagas disease, health perceptions, Latin American Migrants, non-endemic countries

Procedia PDF Downloads 114