Updating the Systematic Reviews Used to Develop the U.S. Recommendations for Providing Quality Family Planning Services

Abstract

I n 2014, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Office of Population Affairs (OPA) released clinical recommendations for providing family planning services, entitled Providing Quality Family Planning Services: Recommendations of CDC and the U.S. Office of Population Affairs (QFP).1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Office of Population AffairsProviding quality family planning services: recommendations of the CDC and the U.S. Office of Population Affairs. MMWR Recomm Rep.2014;. 2014; 63: 1-54 Google Scholar These recommendations were developed through a rigorous and transparent process, 2 Gavin LE Moskosky SB Barfield WD Introduction to the supplement: development of federal recommendations for family planning services. Am J Prev Med. 2015; 49: S1-S5https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.03.028 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar in accordance with clinical guideline development recommendations from WHO, 3 Schünemann H Fretheim A Oxman A; WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 1. Guidelines for guidelines. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006; 4: 13https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-4-13 Crossref PubMed Scopus (221) Google Scholar , 4 WHOWHO Handbook for Guideline Development. 2013; (Published 2012. Accessed October 16, 2013.)http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/75146/1/9789241548441_eng.pdf Google Scholar and the National Academy of Medicine (formerly known as the Institute of Medicine). 5 Institute of MedicineClinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. National Academies Press, Washington, DC2011 Google Scholar A critical component of this process was conducting systematic reviews of the literature for four key areas of family planning service delivery, identified by an Expert Work Group when the recommendations were being planned: counseling and education, serving adolescents, quality improvement, and community education and engagement. These initial systematic reviews captured the available evidence between January 1, 1985, and February 28, 2011, and were published in a supplement of this journal in 2015, 6 Zapata L Tregear S Curtis K et al. Impact of contraceptive counseling in clinical settings: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2015; 49: S31-S45https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.03.023 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (37) Google Scholar , 7 Pazol K Zapata L Tregear S Mautone-Smith N Gavin L Impact of contraceptive education on contraceptive knowledge and decision making: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2015; 49: S46-S56https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.03.031 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (43) Google Scholar , 8 Zapata L Tregear S Tiller M Pazol K Mautone-Smith N Gavin L Impact of reminder systems in clinical settings to improve family planning outcomes: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2015; 49: S57-S64https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.03.018 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar , 9 Gavin L Williams J Rivera M Lachance C Programs to strengthen parent-adolescent communication about reproductive health: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2015; 49: S65-S72https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.03.022 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (31) Google Scholar , 10 Brittain A Williams J Zapata L Pazol K Romero L Weik T Youth-friendly family planning services for young people: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2015; 49: S73-S84https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.03.019 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (39) Google Scholar , 11 Brittain AW Williams JR Zapata LB Moskosky SB Weik TS Confidentiality in family planning services for young people: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2015; 49: S85-S92https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.04.001 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (25) Google Scholar , 12 Williams J Gavin L Carter M Glass E Client and provider perspectives on quality of care: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2015; 49: S93-S106https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.03.017 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar , 13 Carter M Tregear M Lachance C Community engagement in family planning in the U.S.: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2015; 49: S116-S123https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre. 2015.03.029 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar , 14 Carter M Tregear M Moskosky S Community education for family planning in the U.S.: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2015; 49: S107-S115https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.03.030 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar along with a description of the systematic review methodology 15 Tregear S Gavin L Williams J Systematic review evidence methodology: providing quality family planning services. Am J Prev Med. 2015; 49: S23-S30https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre. 2015.03.033 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (22) Google Scholar and syntheses of existing clinical recommendations for men and women. 16 Godfrey EM Tepper NK Curtis KM Moskosky SB Gavin LE Developing federal clinical care recommendations for women. Am J Prev Med. 2015; 49: S6-S13https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre. 2015.02.023 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (7) Google Scholar , 17 Marcell A Gavin L Moskosky S McKenna R Romaplo A Developing federal clinical care recommendations for men. Am J Prev Med. 2015; 49: S14-S22https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre. 2015.03.006 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar