2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Trends in Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Applications in the Year After Abortion Access Changes

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          his cross-sectional study assesses changes in the percentage of applicants to gynecology residency programs in states that implemented abortion restrictions after the US Supreme Court's Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.

          Key Points

          Question

          Has there been a change in the percentage of applicants to obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) residency programs in states with strict abortion laws?

          Findings

          In this cross-sectional study of 2463 OBGYN residency program applicants, between 2022 and 2023, there was a small but significant decrease in the percentage of applicants to programs in states with stricter abortion laws.

          Meaning

          The findings suggest early evidence of a decline in the number of unique applicants to OBGYN residency programs in states with strict abortion laws.

          Abstract

          Importance

          State-specific abortion restrictions currently affect the training of approximately 44% of obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) residents in the US. Examination of where future trainees apply for residency is important.

          Objective

          To assess changes in the percentage of applicants to OBGYN residency programs by state based on abortion restrictions in place after the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (hereafter, Dobbs v Jackson) US Supreme Court decision and examine whether applicants’ preference for programs, as suggested by the distribution of application signals that express higher interest, was associated with abortion bans.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This serial cross-sectional study used anonymized data for all applicants to OBGYN residency programs in the US during September and October from 2019 to 2023. Data were obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges Electronic Residency Application Service.

          Exposures

          Applications and program preference signals sent to OBGYN residency programs, analyzed by applicants’ self-reported demographics.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The primary outcome was differences in the percentage of unique applicants to OBGYN residency programs from 2019 to 2023, with programs categorized by state-based abortion restrictions after the Dobbs v Jackson decision. Secondary outcomes included the distribution of program signals by state abortion ban status.

          Results

          A total of 2463 applicants (2104 [85.4%] women) who applied to OBGYN programs for the 2023 residency match cycle were the focal sample of this study. While overall applicant numbers remained stable between 2019 and 2023, the number of applicants differed significantly by state abortion ban status in the 2022 ( F 2,1087 = 10.82; P < .001) and the 2023 ( F 2,1087 = 14.31; P < .001) match cycles. There were no differences in the number of signals received by programs in states with bans after controlling for known covariates such as number of applications received and program size, and there were no differences in the percentage of signals sent by out-of-state applicants to programs in states with different abortion laws than their home states ( F 2,268 = 2.41; P = .09).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this cross-sectional study, there was a small but statistically significant decrease in the number of applicants to OBGYN residency programs in states with abortion bans in 2023 compared with 2022. However, applicant signaling data did not vary by states’ abortion ban status. While OBGYN residency programs almost completely filled in 2023, continued monitoring for the potential consequences of state abortion bans for OBGYN training is needed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references3

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Projected Implications of Overturning Roe v Wade on Abortion Training in U.S. Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Programs

          In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision on Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization, a direct challenge to Roe v Wade. A detailed policy analysis by the Guttmacher Institute projects that, if Roe v Wade is overturned, 21 states are certain to ban abortion and five states are likely to ban abortion. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires access to abortion training for all obstetrics and gynecology residency programs. We performed a comprehensive study of all accredited U.S. obstetrics and gynecology residency programs to assess how many of these programs and trainees are currently located in states projected to ban abortion if Roe v Wade is overturned. We found that, of 286 accredited obstetrics and gynecology residency programs with current residents, 128 (44.8%) are in states certain or likely to ban abortion if Roe v Wade is overturned. Therefore, of 6,007 current obstetrics and gynecology residents, 2,638 (43.9%) are certain or likely to lack access to in-state abortion training. Preparation for the reversal of Roe v Wade should include not only a recognition of the negative effects on patient access to abortion care in affected states, but also of the dramatic implications for obstetrics and gynecology residency training.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Practice Location Preferences in Response to State Abortion Restrictions Among Physicians and Trainees on Social Media

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A Model Comparison Perspective

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                7 February 2024
                February 2024
                7 February 2024
                : 7
                : 2
                : e2355017
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor
                [2 ]Larner College of Medicine at University of Vermont, Burlington
                [3 ]Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke
                [4 ]Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                [5 ]Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC
                [6 ]NYU Long Island School of Medicine, New York, New York
                [7 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
                [8 ]American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: December 14, 2023.
                Published: February 7, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.55017
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2024 Hammoud MM et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Maya M. Hammoud, MD, MBA, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan Medical School, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, L4000 Von Voigtlander Women’s Hospital, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 ( immaya@ 123456umich.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Dunleavy and Zhu had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Hammoud, Morgan, George, Ollendorff, Dalrymple, Dunleavy, Banks, Akingbola.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Hammoud, George, Ollendorff, Dalrymple, Dunleavy, Zhu, Banks, Akingbola, Connolly.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Hammoud, Morgan, George, Ollendorff, Dunleavy, Zhu, Banks.
                Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Hammoud, Ollendorff, Dalrymple, Dunleavy, Banks, Akingbola, Connolly.
                Statistical analysis: Morgan, Dunleavy, Zhu.
                Obtained funding: Hammoud.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Ollendorff, Dunleavy, Zhu, Banks, Akingbola.
                Supervision: Hammoud, Ollendorff, Dunleavy, Connolly.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Hammoud reported receiving fees from the American Medical Association (AMA) for consulting with the Medical Education Business unit outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was conducted with support from the “Transforming the UME to GME Transition: Right Resident, Right Program, Ready Day One” Reimagining Residency Initiative grant from the AMA (Drs Hammoud and Morgan).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The AMA had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Data Sharing Statement: See the Supplement.
                Additional Contributions: The grant team of the AMA’s “Transforming the UME to GME Transition: Right Resident, Right Program, Ready Day One” Reimagining Residency Initiative contributed to the design of this project. We thank all members of grant work groups across the specialty for their engagement in this work.
                Article
                zoi231615
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.55017
                10851098
                38324311
                3e637b77-afdd-4797-8e68-b5d96b34b6d8
                Copyright 2024 Hammoud MM et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 15 September 2023
                : 14 December 2023
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Medical Education

                Comments

                Comment on this article