Bayer Women's Health Medical Affairs Department is interested in receiving and reviewing grant applications to support appropriate programs which cover the following areas of interest:Therapeutic Areas/Disease States:
Long-Acting Reversible Contraception (LARC)
Intended Audience: Healthcare Professionals including Obstetricians, Gynecologists, Physician Assistants, and Nurses specializing in Women's Health (NPs, APNs, CMs, and RNs)
Bayer TA Rationale for Educational Support:
Areas of interest based on referenced literature:
- Provide guidance on the identification, counseling and management of appropriate patients for intrauterine contraception
- Educate on the proper placement of the intrauterine contraception
- Educate on performing/interpreting the confirmation test and removal
The proposal must be compliant with standards and guidelines for commercial support (e.g., ACCME).
The proposal should include:
- Needs assessment
- Educational design and rationale for selection (where applicable)
- Learning objectives
- Proposed faculty
- Participant recruitment plan (where applicable)
- Outcomes strategy/plan
- Detailed budget (please use the template available on the website)
- Copy of most recent accreditation letter and status
- Sample of other program(s) in similar therapeutic areas
Applications/proposals which are submitted and determined to be complete are reviewed monthly. Allow a minimum of 45 days from submission for response.
Acceptance of a Bayer educational grant indicates that you will:
- Reconcile grant funding within 60 days of completion of the educational program
- Permit a Bayer Medical Affairs representative to audit live programs
- Share activity data and outcomes metrics within 30 days of their availability
Rationale for Identification of Area for Educational Support
In the US, is still a significant public health issue. In fact about 48% of women who have an unintended pregnancy reported that they used contraception during the month they became pregnant.  IUCs are one of the most effective forms of contraception with a failure rate of less than 1% in the first year of use.  Although the prevalence of use of the IUC in the US has grown from 1.3% in 1995 to 6.4% in 2011-2013 according to the National Survey of Family Growth, use is still quite low in the United States relative to the rest of the world. Within the US however, there is substantial geographic variation in IUC usage rates. These variations may be due to consumer demand, provider recommendations and economic issues.  Some of the reasons suggested for low use have been related to training , misperceptions about the IUCs, negative attitudes towards the IUCs and misinformation about IUCs. Rubin et.al. showed that IUC insertion experience during family medicine residency is an important predictor of use in practice.  They reported that about two thirds of family medicine chief residents had no clinical experience with IUC insertion and less than 10% managed more than 6 cases during their residency. However, over one half of FPs provide reproductive health care and could learn IUC insertions. They and others  conclude that training in insertion should be accompanied by other basic information improve contraceptive services since misperceptions and misinformation are also barriers to provision of IUCs.  Madden et al surveyed OBGs and found that one third had misinformation regarding appropriate candidates and 75% were counseling patients incorrectly regarding spotting and breakthrough bleeding with use of the IUCs.
In 2009 and 2015, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued both an ACOG Committee Opinion and a Practice Bulletin addressing the use of intrauterine devices. They are recommending that long- acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) be offered as first line contraceptive methods for appropriate women to help reduce the unintended pregnancy rate. Access should be increased, and in order to accomplish this, barriers, including provider training, must be addressed. [8,9]
- Hubacher D, Finer LB, Espey E. Renewed Interest in intrauterine contraception in the United States: evidence and explanation. Contraception 2011;83:291-294.
- Trussel J. Contraception Failure in the United States. Contraception 2004; 70:89-96
- Xu X, Macaluso M, Ouyang L, Kulczycki A, Grosse SD. Revival of the intrauterine device: increased insertions among US women with employer-sponsored insurance, 2002-2008. Contraception 2012; 85:155-59.
- Data on file.
- Rubin SE, Fletcher J, Stein T, Segall-Gutierrez P, Gold M. Determinants of intrauterine contraception provision among US family physicians: a national survey of knowledge, attitudes and practice. Contraception 2011; 83:472-78.
- Harper CC, Blum M, Thiel de Bocanegra T, Darney PD, Speidel JJ, Policar M, Drey EA. Challenges in Translating Evidence to Practice. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 1359-69.
- Madden T, Allsworth JE, Hladky J, Secura GM, Peipert JF. Intrauterine contraception in Saint Louis: a survey of obstetrician and gynecologists’ knowledge and attitudes. Contraception 2010; 81:112-16.
- Committee on Gynecologic Practice. Increasing use of contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices to reduce unintended pregnancy. Long Acting Reversible Contraception Workshop- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee Opinion; Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126:e44-8.
- Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology. Long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletin; Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118:184-94.