As women with cystic fibrosis (CF) live longer, healthier lives, they increasingly face decisions related to their reproductive health. This qualitative study explores their unique decision support needs and preferences to aid in the development of a CF-specific reproductive goals decision aid.

Womenwith CF age 18-44 years participated in individual, semi-structured, telephone-based interviews, and women with CF age 18 years and older participated in semi-structured focus group discussions (FGDs). Both explored experiences and attitudes surrounding parenthood, pregnancy, contraception, and preferences for reproductive health care provision.FGDs also explored the use, content, and format of a reproductive goals decision aid for women with CF. We transcribed interviews and FGDs and conducted content and thematic analyses using an inductive approach.

Twenty women (age range 20-42 years) participated in interviews and 18 women (age range 26-63 years) participated in three FGDs. Major themes identified incluproductive health, including through a patient-centered, disease-specific, reproductive goals decision aid.

We aimed to explore Swedish women’s decision-making experiences regarding permanent contraception.

In this study, we included 17 women aged 30-48 who were scheduled to undergo female permanent contraceptive procedures. We conducted semistructured interviews using two broad open-ended questions. We analyzed these data using systematic text condensation based on the principles of psychological phenomenological analysis.

The interviewees experienced no counseling or support from health care workers regarding permanent contraception until they specifically asked for it. Participants reported that they themselves place the responsibility of permanent contraception solely on women. Consequently, our participants described feeling hesitancy and ambivalence in the process of deciding to have the procedure. Once the decision was made and the women were on the waiting lists for surgery, they experienced relief and empowerment.

Our findings suggest that health care providers in Sweden miss opportunities to support patient-centered decision-making regarding permanent contraception. This study indicates that women make deliberate and considered decisions regarding permanent contraception and are best positioned to know when the procedure should take place in their reproductive lives.

Health care professionals should discuss permanent contraception as an option with all women desiring contraception to allow them to decide if that method is right for them.

Health care professionals should discuss permanent contraception as an option with all women desiring contraception to allow them to decide if that method is right for them.Multiple barriers exist to sterilization in the postpartum period. TGF-beta assay One such barrier, the Medicaid Title XIX sterilization policy, requires publicly insured patients to complete a sterilization consent form at least 30 days prior to their scheduled procedure. While this policy was set in place in the 1970s to address the practice of coerced sterilization among marginalized women, it has served as a significant barrier to obtaining the procedure in the contemporary period. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted specific complexities surrounding postpartum sterilization and created additional barriers for women desiring this contraceptive method. Despite the time constraints to perform postpartum sterilization, some hospital administrators, elective officials, and state Medicaid offices deemed sterilization as “elective.” Additionally, as the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has revised telemedicine reimbursement and encouraged its increased use, it has provided no guidance for the sterilization consent form, use of oral consents, and change to the sterilization consent form expiration date. This leaves individual states to create policies and recommended procedures that may not be accepted or recognized by CMS. These barriers put significant strain on patients attempting to obtain postpartum sterilization, specifically for patients with lower incomes and women of color. CMS can support reproductive health for vulnerable populations by providing clear guidance to state Medicaid offices, extending the 180-day expiration of a sterilization consent form signed prior to the pandemic, and allowing for telemedicine oral consents with witnesses or electronic signatures.

There is a growing need for valid, efficient, and easy scoring scales to rate the quality of cohort studies. We aimed to develop and validate a quality assessment score to be used for cohort studies.

We followed a rigorous process to establish content, face, and construct validity. Most questions were scored at 0 or 1. Inter-rater reliability and test-retest reliability were assessed using the Spearman correlation coefficient (r

) and Cohen’s κ statistic. Internal consistency was measured using the Kuder-Richardson formula 20 (KR20).

The final tool consists of 9 questions with a maximum score of 10. The inter-rater reliability was high with the Spearman correlation coefficient (r

= .66). Agreement for inclusion was 90%. Test-retest reliability was high. For rater 1, r

= .91, κ= .38 for scores, and κ= 1 for inclusion. For rater 2, r= .94, 80% agreement for scores, and 100% agreement for inclusion. Internal consistency was reasonable based on 2 studies KR20= .21 and KR20= .65. The novel scale rated highest in efficiency, understandably, ease of use, and ease of interpretation when compared with 3 other scales.

This novel scale has favorable performance characteristics, is efficient to conduct, and is easy to interpret and will be very helpful for physicians and researchers conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

This novel scale has favorable performance characteristics, is efficient to conduct, and is easy to interpret and will be very helpful for physicians and researchers conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Underwater EMR (UEMR) has emerged as an attractive alternative to conventional EMR (CEMR) for the resection of colorectal polyps. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare UEMR and CEMR for the resection of colorectal polyps with respect to efficacy and safety.

A literature search was performed across multiple databases, including MEDLINE/PubMed, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and Scopus, for studies that were published until May 2020. Only studies that compared the resection of colorectal polyps using UEMR with CEMR were included. Outcomes examined included rates of en bloc resection, recurrence, postprocedure bleeding, perforation, and resection time.

Seven studies totaling 1237 polyps were included 614 polyps were resected with UEMR and 623 polyps with CEMR. UEMR was associated with a significant increase in the rate of overall en bloc resection (odds ratio [OR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-2.39; P< .001; I

= 38%), with subgroup analysis showing a significant increase in the rates of en bloc resection in polyps≥20mm (OR, 1.