<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com">
<title>Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care recent issues</title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com</link>
<description>Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care RSS feed -- recent issues</description>
<prism:eIssn>2045-2098</prism:eIssn>
<prism:publicationName>Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care</prism:publicationName>
<prism:issn>1471-1893</prism:issn>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/67?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/68?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/70?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/72?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/73?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/84?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/93?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/94?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/101?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/102?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/110?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/116?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/117?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/122?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/123?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/125?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/127?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/129?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/130?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/131?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/134?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/136-a?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/136-b?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/137?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/138-a?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/138-b?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/139?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/140-a?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/140-b?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/141-a?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/141-b?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/141-c?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/142?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/143-a?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/143-b?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/145?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/67?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[In this issue]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/67?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <sec id="s1"><st>Redefinition of women's health care</st> <p>Last year the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists published &lsquo;High Quality Women&rsquo;s Health Care: a Proposal for Change' that proposed a radical change to the structure of UK women's health services. Andrew Horne and Johannes Bitzer discuss this exciting document from both a UK and a European perspective, commenting on its implications for sexual health provision.</p> <p><I><A HREF="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/content/38/2/68.full">See page 68</A></I></p> </sec> <sec id="s2"><st>Multidrug-resistant gonorrhoea</st> <p>Gonorrhoea infection is increasing in the UK with a 3% increase in cases between 2009 and 2010. Last year there was a report of a ceftriaxone-resistant isolate; there is a growing concern that gonorrhoea may become incurable. The commentary by Taylor and Bignell is timely. It reviews the current position and provides clear guidelines on screening and treatment, which may prove challenging for some community services that rely exclusively on the use of nucleic acid amplification tests.</p>...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:24-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2012-100349</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2012-100349</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[In this issue]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Highlights from this issue</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>67</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>67</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/68?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[A new age has come: the redefinition of women's health care]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/68?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <sec id="s1"><st>Background</st> <p>A recent report from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), <I>High Quality Women's Health Care: A Proposal for Change,</I> published in July 2011, is proposing a radical change to the way UK women's health services are structured.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> It is an exciting document that attempts to address the current challenges in women's health care and it is relevant, not only to the UK, but also to all of us throughout the European Union.</p> </sec> <sec id="s2"><st>The delivery of women's health in the current configuration cannot be sustained in Europe</st> <p>As health service providers, we are all working against a backdrop of increasing financial and workforce pressures, rising health care demand and, in some countries, government-driven health service reforms. Clearly, there is an urgent need to think laterally about how services can be provided, and by whom, to ensure that the required efficiency savings can...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bitzer, J., Horne, A. W.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:24-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2011-100242</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2011-100242</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[A new age has come: the redefinition of women's health care]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentaries</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>68</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>69</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/70?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Multidrug-resistant gonorrhoea: tackling a meaner bug in the UK]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/70?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <sec id="s1"><st>Background</st> <p>Reports of a gonorrhoea &lsquo;superbug&rsquo; made the headlines last year following the description of a ceftriaxone-resistant isolate <I>of Neisseria gonorrhoeae</I>.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> But is antimicrobial resistance a significant problem and what is the current reality of <I>N. gonorrhoeae</I> infection in the UK? Is gonorrhoea getting meaner?</p> <p>Anogenital infection with <I>N. gonorrhoeae</I> has been highly responsive to single-dose antimicrobial treatment since the introduction of penicillin. However, the progressive development of resistance by <I>N. gonorrhoeae</I> to many classes of antimicrobial has necessitated periodic changes in treatment recommendations to maintain treatment efficacy and led to ever diminishing treatment options. Third-generation cephalosporins, notably ceftriaxone and cefixime, have been the mainstay of treatment recommendations since 2004. Surveillance data in the UK show a progressive drift in the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of ceftriaxone and cefixime to <I>N. gonorrhoeae</I>,<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> culminating in multiple case reports of treatment failure with cefixime,<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref><cross-ref...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Taylor, R., Bignell, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:24-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2012-100328</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2012-100328</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Multidrug-resistant gonorrhoea: tackling a meaner bug in the UK]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentaries</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>70</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>72</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/72?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Overall efficacy of HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against grade 3 or greater cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: 4-year end-of-study analysis of the randomised, double-blind PATRICIA trial]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/72?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p> <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>Lehtinen</snm><fnm>M</fnm></firstauthor>PaavonenJWheelerCM. <title>Lancet Oncol</title> <date>2012</date>;<volume-nr>13</volume-nr>:<first-page>89</first-page>&ndash;99</other-ref></bib> </p> <p>Cross-protective efficacy of HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infection and precancer caused by non-vaccine oncogenic HPV types: 4-year end-of-study analysis of the randomised, double-blind PATRICIA trial.</p> <p> <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>Wheeler</snm>, <fnm>CM</fnm></firstauthor>, Castellsagu&eacute;, X, Garland, SM, . <title>Lancet Oncol</title> <date>2012</date>;<volume-nr>13</volume-nr>:<first-page>100</first-page>&ndash;110</other-ref></bib> </p> <p>Persistent infection with high-risk (HR) human papillomavirus (HPV) is the underlying cause of cervical cancer.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> HR HPV types 16/18 have the highest type-specific risk of cervical cancer development<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> and predominate in 70% of cervical cancer cases worldwide.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref></p> <p>There are two licensed prophylactic HPV vaccines: Cervarix&trade; targeting 16/18 and Gardasil<sup>&reg;</sup> targeting 16/18 and HPV types 6/11 that cause genital warts. Clinical trials of both vaccines demonstrate high vaccine efficacy for prevention of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater (CIN2+).<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R4">4</cross-ref> <cross-ref type="bib" refid="R5">5</cross-ref> The clinical evidence supported the UK-wide implementation of Cervarix, for cervical cancer prevention, from September...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hibbitts, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:24-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2012-100337</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2012-100337</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Overall efficacy of HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against grade 3 or greater cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: 4-year end-of-study analysis of the randomised, double-blind PATRICIA trial]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Journal reviews</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>72</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>72</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/73?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Contraceptive efficacy and tolerability of ethinylestradiol 20 {micro}g/drospirenone 3 mg in a flexible extended regimen: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled study]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/73?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Background</st>
<p>The contraceptive efficacy and tolerability of a new flexible extended regimen of ethinylestradiol (EE) 20 &mu;g/drospirenone (DRSP) 3 mg to extend the menstrual cycle and enable management of intracyclic (breakthrough) bleeding (flexible<SUB>MIB</SUB>) was investigated and the bleeding pattern compared with a conventional 28-day regimen and a fixed extended 124-day regimen.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Study design</st>
<p>This Phase III, 2-year, multicentre, open-label study randomly (4:1:1) allocated women (aged 18&ndash;35 years) to the following regimens: flexible<SUB>MIB</SUB> (24&ndash;120 days' active hormonal intake with 4-day tablet-free intervals); conventional (24 days' active hormonal intake followed by a 4-day hormone-free interval); or fixed extended (120 days' uninterrupted active hormonal intake followed by a 4-day tablet-free interval). Primary outcomes included the number of bleeding/spotting days during Year 1 (all regimens) and the number of observed unintended pregnancies over 2 years (flexible<SUB>MIB</SUB> only).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Results were analysed in 1067 women (full analysis set). The mean number of bleeding/spotting days was lower with the flexible<SUB>MIB</SUB> vs the conventional regimen [41.0&plusmn;29.1 (95% CI 38.8&ndash;43.3) vs 65.8&plusmn;27.0 (95% CI 62.2&ndash;69.4) days, <I>p</I>&lt;0.0001; treatment difference &ndash;24.8 (95% CI &ndash;29.2 to &ndash;20.3) days]. The corresponding value for the fixed extended regimen was 60.9&plusmn;51.1 (95% CI 53.9&ndash;67.9) days. The Pearl Index for the flexible<SUB>MIB</SUB> regimen was 0.64 (95% CI 0.28&ndash;1.26). All regimens had comparable tolerability profiles.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>EE 20 &mu;g/DRSP 3 mg administered as a flexible extended regimen with MIB is effective, well tolerated and is associated with statistically significantly fewer bleeding/spotting days and fewer withdrawal bleeding episodes vs EE/DRSP in a conventional 28-day regimen. The flexible<SUB>MIB</SUB> also provided statistically significantly fewer spotting days vs EE/DRSP in a fixed extended 124-day regimen (<I>post hoc</I> evaluation). The flexible<SUB>MIB</SUB> regimen allows women to extend their menstrual cycle and manage their intracyclic (breakthrough) bleeding.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Klipping, C., Duijkers, I., Fortier, M. P., Marr, J., Trummer, D., Elliesen, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:24-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2011-100213</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2011-100213</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Unlocked]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Contraceptive efficacy and tolerability of ethinylestradiol 20 {micro}g/drospirenone 3 mg in a flexible extended regimen: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled study]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>73</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>83</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/84?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Long-term tolerability of ethinylestradiol 20 {micro}g/drospirenone 3 mg in a flexible extended regimen: results from a randomised, controlled, multicentre study]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/84?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Background</st>
<p>This study was designed to assess the long-term safety and tolerability of a new flexible extended regimen of ethinylestradiol (EE) 20 &mu;g/drospirenone (DRSP) 3 mg, which allows management of intracyclic (breakthrough) bleeding [flexible management of intracyclic (breakthrough) bleeding (MIB)], in comparison to conventional 28-day and fixed extended regimens.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Study design</st>
<p>In this Phase III, multicentre, open-label study, women (aged 18&ndash;35 years) were randomised to EE/DRSP in the following regimens: flexible<SUB>MIB</SUB> (24&ndash;120 days' active hormonal intake followed by a 4-day tablet-free interval), conventional 28-day (24 days' active hormonal intake followed by a 4-day hormone-free interval) or fixed extended (120 days' uninterrupted active hormonal intake followed by a 4-day tablet-free interval) during a 1-year comparative phase. Thereafter, women entered a 1-year safety extension phase in which the majority received the flexible<SUB>MIB</SUB> regimen. Safety/tolerability outcomes were measured over 2 years. A separate analysis of certain safety parameters (endometrial, hormonal, lipid, haemostatic and metabolic variables) was conducted at two of the study centres.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Results were analysed in 1067 and 783 women in the comparative and safety extension phases. Overall, 56.3% of women experienced &ge;1 adverse event (AE) in the safety extension phase. Serious AEs occurred in 3.0%, 1.4% and 3.3% of women receiving the flexible<SUB>MIB</SUB>, conventional and fixed extended regimens, respectively. No unexpected endometrial, hormonal, lipid, haemostatic or metabolic findings occurred with any of the three regimens.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>EE/DRSP in a flexible extended regimen with management of intracyclic (breakthrough) bleeding is well-tolerated and, when administered for up to 2 years, has a good safety profile comparable to other estrogen/progestogen oral contraceptives.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Klipping, C., Duijkers, I., Fortier, M. P., Marr, J., Trummer, D., Elliesen, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:24-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2011-100214</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2011-100214</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Unlocked]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Long-term tolerability of ethinylestradiol 20 {micro}g/drospirenone 3 mg in a flexible extended regimen: results from a randomised, controlled, multicentre study]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>84</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>93</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/93?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Sense of an Ending]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/93?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Julian Barnes's latest book, winner of the Man Booker Prize 2011, is a novel so slim as to be almost a novella. Light in subject matter, however, it is not.</p> <p>In Part One, protagonist Tony Webster recalls his admiring friendship with a school friend Adrian, his doomed relationship with sexually-withholding Veronica, his ambivalent reaction when Veronica and Adrian later become partners, and his shock when the latter kills himself. The descriptions of fumbled, teenage sexuality in those post-pill years are beautifully drawn, not only convincing but also humorous: "Wasn't this the Sixties? Yes, but only for some people and only in some parts of the country...".</p> <p>Part Two brings us to the present day, when Tony &ndash; a pensioner now and divorced father &ndash; is forced to reassess everything he remembers of those days, when Veronica's mother leaves a message for him in her will. Trying to both grasp...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Quilliam, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:24-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2011-100262</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2011-100262</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Sense of an Ending]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Fiction book review</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>93</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>93</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/94?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Efficacy of ethinylestradiol 20 {micro}g/drospirenone 3 mg in a flexible extended regimen in women with moderate-to-severe primary dysmenorrhoea: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled study]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/94?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>The aim of this Phase III, multicentre, open-label, randomised study was to compare the efficacy and safety of ethinylestradiol (EE)/drospirenone (DRSP) in a new flexible extended regimen that allowed the management of intracyclic (breakthrough) bleeding (MIB) with that of EE/DRSP in a conventional 28-day regimen in women with moderate-to-severe primary dysmenorrhoea.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Women (aged 18&ndash;40 years) with moderate-to-severe primary dysmenorrhoea-related pain received a flexible extended regimen with MIB (flexible<SUB>MIB</SUB>; minimum 24, maximum 120 days of continuous tablet intake for a flexible number of cycles to reach a treatment duration of at least 140 days with 4-day breaks between cycles) or a conventional 28-day regimen (24 active and four placebo tablets for five cycles) of EE/DRSP. The primary outcome was the number of days with dysmenorrhoeic pain over 140 days. Secondary outcomes included other dysmenorrhoea-related pain outcomes, bleeding profile, satisfaction and safety.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Overall, 223 patients received study medication. There were significantly fewer days with dysmenorrhoeic pain with the flexible<SUB>MIB</SUB> regimen than the conventional regimen (difference &ndash;4.2 days, 95% CI &ndash;6.5 to &ndash;2.0; <I>p</I>=0.0003), as well as considerably fewer days with at least moderate dysmenorrhoeic pain (difference &ndash;2.5 days, 95% CI &ndash;3.7 to &ndash;1.3), dysmenorrhoeic pain that interfered with daily activities (difference &ndash;2.2 days, 95% CI &ndash;4.2 to &ndash;0.1) and pelvic pain (difference &ndash;3.4 days, 95% CI &ndash;5.9 to &ndash;0.9). Adverse events were similar with both regimens.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Compared with the conventional regimen, the flexible extended regimen of EE/DRSP with MIB was associated with a significantly greater reduction in days with dysmenorrhoeic pain in women with moderate-to-severe primary dysmenorrhoea. The flexible<SUB>MIB</SUB> regimen was also associated with greater improvements in dysmenorrhea according to the Clinical Global Impression rating scale and was generally well tolerated.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Strowitzki, T., Kirsch, B., Elliesen, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:24-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2011-100225</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2011-100225</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Unlocked]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Efficacy of ethinylestradiol 20 {micro}g/drospirenone 3 mg in a flexible extended regimen in women with moderate-to-severe primary dysmenorrhoea: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled study]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>94</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>101</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/101?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Gynaecology (4th edn)]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/101?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>This is the fourth edition of <I>Gynaecology</I>, which has become one of the standard textbooks of the specialty. It is a large tome and seems to weigh considerably more than my own well-thumbed second edition! A quick count reveals 100 more pages.</p> <p>This edition has two new editors, both experts and subspecialists in their field: Professor David Luesley has edited the Gynaecology Oncology section and Mr Ash Monga the one on Urogynaecology. The editors hope that this new edition will look forward to the challenges of the 21st century, updating readers on all major advances since the previous edition was published in 2003. The editors claim that the book will serve as a comprehensive text for the established specialist and a resource for trainees preparing for examinations as well as general practitioners.</p> <p>The book comprises five sections: Basic Principles and Investigations, Reproductive Medicine, Benign and Malignant Tumours, Urogynaecology and...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robinson, G.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:24-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2011-100272</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2011-100272</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Gynaecology (4th edn)]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Book reviews</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>101</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>101</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/102?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Does hormone replacement therapy cause breast cancer? An application of causal principles to three studies: Part 4. The Million Women Study]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/102?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Background</st>
<p>Based principally on findings in three studies, the collaborative reanalysis (CR), the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) and the Million Women Study (MWS), it is claimed that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) with estrogen plus progestogen (E+P) is now an established cause of breast cancer; the CR and MWS investigators claim that unopposed estrogen therapy (ET) also increases the risk, but to a lesser degree than does E+P. The authors have previously reviewed the findings in the CR and WHI (Parts 1&ndash;3).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>To evaluate the evidence for causality in the MWS.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Using generally accepted causal criteria, in this article (Part 4) the authors evaluate the findings in the MWS for E+P and for ET.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Despite the massive size of the MWS the findings for E+P and for ET did not adequately satisfy the criteria of time order, information bias, detection bias, confounding, statistical stability and strength of association, duration-response, internal consistency, external consistency or biological plausibility. Had detection bias resulted in the identification in women aged 50&ndash;55 years of 0.3 additional cases of breast cancer in ET users per 1000 per year, or 1.2 in E+P users, it would have nullified the apparent risks reported.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>HRT may or may not increase the risk of breast cancer, but the MWS did not establish that it does.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Shapiro, S., Farmer, R. D. T., Stevenson, J. C., Burger, H. G., Mueck, A. O.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:24-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2011-100229</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2011-100229</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Editor''s choice, Press releases]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Does hormone replacement therapy cause breast cancer? An application of causal principles to three studies: Part 4. The Million Women Study]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>102</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>109</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/110?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Experience with Instillagel(R) for hysterosonography and analgesia in a complex contraception clinic: a QIPP initiative]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/110?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Background</st>
<p>A significant number of women are referred with bleeding problems related to the use of hormonal contraception, for advice on management of heavy periods or following difficulty with intrauterine device insertion. The authors describe their experience with Instillagel<sup>&reg;</sup> as the contrast medium for hysterosonography in a one-stop clinic for complex contraception referrals. They also comment on its analgesic properties for cervical and uterine instrumentation.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>The authors reviewed 275 referrals seen over a 6-month period in consultant-delivered clinics provided by a contraception service that serves a single county (population 500 000). They describe the simple technique they use for hysterosonography with Instillagel.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>The authors found Instillagel useful as a contrast medium for sonographic assessment of the endometrial cavity. Additionally, presence of gel in the endometrial cavity, with a time interval between insertion of gel and uterine instrumentation, appears to result in analgesia and relaxation of the uterus. There was a very low incidence of difficulties in a group of patients who had previously experienced significant problems with uterine instrumentation.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Hysterosonography is an efficacious, simple and inexpensive technique for assessment of the endometrial cavity. It has many potential applications in contraceptive care. An additional benefit appeared to be that once gel was instilled in the cavity for 10&ndash;15 minutes it facilitated instrumentation of the uterus.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Pillai, M., Shefras, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:24-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2011-100132</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2011-100132</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Experience with Instillagel(R) for hysterosonography and analgesia in a complex contraception clinic: a QIPP initiative]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>110</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>116</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/116?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The plight of nuns: hazards of nulliparity]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/116?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p> <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>Britt</snm><fnm>K</fnm></firstauthor>ShortR. <title>Lancet</title> online 7 December 2011. <A HREF="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61746-7">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61746-7</A> [accessed 7 February 2012]</other-ref></bib> </p> <p>This comment,<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> published in <I>The Lancet</I>, has evoked a plethora of response in the popular press and revisits the contentious issue of the Catholic Church and the combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP). It focuses on the increased risks of breast, ovarian and uterine cancers in Catholic nuns, the titular &lsquo;hazards of nulliparity&rsquo;.</p> <p>It reflects on Fraumeni's work, who reviewed cancer mortality data of nuns in the USA for the period 1900&ndash;1954, which showed an increase in mortality in nuns from breast cancer at all ages, and an increase in later life of uterine and ovarian cancer.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> It then succinctly covers the data on the link between parity and these cancers, before moving to the effect of the COCP on their incidence &ndash; reduction in ovarian and endometrial cancer without increasing...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Whitaker, L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2012-100339</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2012-100339</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The plight of nuns: hazards of nulliparity]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Journal reviews</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>116</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>116</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/117?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Abortion pills: under whose control?]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/117?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <sec id="s1"><st>Introduction</st> <p>We owe a lot to scientists such as Baulieu<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> in Paris who developed the progesterone receptor modulator mifepristone and Bygdeman<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> in Stockholm who conducted early trials of its use in combination with a prostaglandin. Many others have contributed to the development of this drug and to finessing optimal combinations, visit intervals, dosages and routes of administration.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref> This has given women an entirely new and safe option when requesting an abortion. Novel ways of providing early medical abortion have been developed, especially using non-medical personnel such as nurses or midwives,<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R4">4</cross-ref> <cross-ref type="bib" refid="R5">5</cross-ref> or doctors who are not on the premises.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R6">6</cross-ref></p> <p>Early medical abortion has a key role to play in reducing unsafe abortion around the world, particularly in resource-poor settings where inadequate surgical services for abortion entail a high risk of infection and reproductive tract injury.<cross-ref type="bib"...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rowlands, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2011-100232</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2011-100232</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Abortion pills: under whose control?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Legal opinion</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>117</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>122</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/122?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust ' Let's Meet 2011']]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/122?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>When Jo Maxwell died of cervical cancer at the tragically early age of 40, her husband James translated his grief into action and founded a charity in her memory. Some 13 years on, Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust &ndash; the only charity in the UK for women with cervical abnormalities and cancer &ndash; recently held one of its annual &lsquo;Let&rsquo;s Meet' days for women, their family and friends at the Thistle Birmingham City Hotel, Birmingham, UK on 15 October 2011.</p> <p>You might think that with the shadow of cancer underpinning the day, the mood would be solemn. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, there were tears. Yes, there was anger &ndash; often, it has to be admitted, against clinicians who while providing superb medical care, sometimes failed to relate to patients on a more human level. But these expressions of emotion only served to fuel the determination of...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Quilliam, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2012-100296</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2012-100296</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust ' Let's Meet 2011']]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Conference report</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>122</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>122</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/123?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Doulas as facilitators: the expanded role of doulas into abortion care]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/123?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <sec id="s1"><st>Background</st> <p>The involvement of a lay support person, known as a doula, in the labour process is a long-standing practice across different cultures and traditions. A great body of literature exists evaluating the effect of a support layperson within the labour process on maternal and neonatal outcomes. This literature demonstrates a positive association between doula support and decreased labour time, oxytocin utilisation, Caesarean section rates and need for epidural/anaesthesia.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> Given the varied benefits afforded to women through doula support at the time of labour, the authors believe that women's health providers should consider the potential role that continuous lay person support could play at other physically and emotionally challenging moments in women's lives.</p> </sec> <sec id="s2"><st>Doulas in abortion care</st> <p>One such setting in which doula support would be highly beneficial is in abortion care. Abortion is a stressful event regardless of a woman's circumstances. Unlike pregnancy...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chor, J., Goyal, V., Roston, A., Keith, L., Patel, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2011-100278</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2011-100278</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Doulas as facilitators: the expanded role of doulas into abortion care]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Personal view</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>123</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>124</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/125?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Abortion in the classical world]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/125?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <sec id="s1"><st>Oaths and ethics</st> <p>Even someone with only the most basic understanding of medical history knows that Hippocrates is viewed as the father of medicine and that the Hippocratic Oath forbids a physician from giving a woman an abortive remedy or giving the woman the means of procuring an abortion.</p> <p>The translation of the Hippocratic Oath has been the subject of much debate as some academics claim that translations over the years through the medieval period and beyond have been general rather than specific. It is important to appreciate that these broad translations fitted nicely into ecclesiastical teachings in the medieval period giving dogma the extra foundation of classical teachings. Some may argue this is a cynical view but what is undeniable according to historians such as Professor John Riddle is that the line on abortion in the original Hippocratic Oath literally translates that the physician must not "......]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Smith, L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2012-100313</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2012-100313</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Abortion in the classical world]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>History of contraception</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>125</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>126</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/127?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Gods no longer? Some thoughts about the status of health professionals in the 21st century]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/127?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <sec id="s1"><st>Background</st> <p>It is not so long ago &ndash; and certainly within the living memory of many Journal readers &ndash; that health professionals were gods. To be slightly more precise when it comes to definitions of the spheres of Heaven, nurses were ministering angels, the general practitioner (GP) was a benign and infallible minor deity, while the consultant &ndash; particularly in life-or-death specialties such as childbirth or oncology &ndash; was Jupiter Himself. One may note the gender of the reflexive pronoun.</p> <p>Times have changed in medicine as well as in religion. Nowadays if we have not quite reached the Age of Reason, we are certainly living in an age of reasonable doubt. Society now rarely affords health professionals the same quasi-divine status; where there was faith now there are benchmarks and targets, where there was utter trust now there are tabloid headlines, public enquiries and questions in the House.</p>...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Quilliam, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2012-100340</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2012-100340</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Gods no longer? Some thoughts about the status of health professionals in the 21st century]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Consumer correspondent</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>127</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>129</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/129?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Sexually Transmitted Infections: The Facts (3rd edn)]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/129?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>This book is short and sweet &ndash; it keeps to the facts and doesn't burden the reader with unnecessary detail. In 152 pages it covers everything one would see in a routine genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinic setting. Although the book seems to be intended for clients attending such a clinic, its language is rather too complex for the general population. It is more likely to be of benefit to medical students and clinicians in general practice or those just beginning to attend GUM clinics for additional experience. There is of course a host of e-learning now available that includes sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV basics. I feel this book complements them very well.</p> <p>The topics covered include STIs and an explanation of test results, vaginal discharge, gonorrhoea, genital herpes, warts, syphilis, hepatitis, tropical infections, non-specific genital infections and, finally, HIV. There is a very useful chapter on understanding...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deshpande, N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2012-100303</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2012-100303</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Sexually Transmitted Infections: The Facts (3rd edn)]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Book reviews</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>129</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>129</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/130?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Seems like a touch too much]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/130?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Ever since the news over Christmas that some breast implants fitted in the UK contain industrial strength silicone we have had a run of anxious women wanting us to check their breasts. Our GP registrar is reported to have said "Christmas has come early" on more than one occasion, he being the one most likely to have slots available to fit these worried women into. Our receptionists have tried to wipe the grin off his face despite being happy with the complete attitude turnaround he demonstrated when asked to see &lsquo;extras&rsquo;. Our medical student, who when he arrived was a "surgeon in the making" and couldn't understand why anyone would want a life in general practice, appears to have quickly changed his tune as he sees his dream specialty become the target of hungry lawyers. Moreover, his initial dismissal of general practice as a possible career appears to be...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Goode, P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2012-100334</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2012-100334</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Seems like a touch too much]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>View from primary care</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>130</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>130</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/131?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The renaissance of barrier methods]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/131?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <sec id="s1"><st>Summary</st> <p>In 1987, the threat of litigation led to the withdrawal of intrauterine devices (IUDs) from the American market where depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) had already been banned. There were fears of repercussions that would have led to the limiting of contraceptive choice in Britain. HIV was also an emerging issue and a revival of interest in barrier contraception led to an emphasis on male condoms, with strengthening of manufacturing standards, promotion in the media, improved accessibility and emphasis of their value for dual protection. Twenty-five years later, links still need to be sought within reproductive health services, especially at the interface between the management of contraception and opportunities for HIV prevention.</p> </sec> <sec id="s2"><st>Restricting choice</st> <p>An editorial in this Journal in 1987<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> referred to &lsquo;The customer comes first&rsquo; as a current political slogan and stressed the role of choice when "the commodity on offer is...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Edouard, L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2012-100314</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2012-100314</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The renaissance of barrier methods]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Twenty-five years ago: then and now</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>131</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>133</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/134?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/134?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <sec id="s1"><st>What's your mission?</st> <p>Every day in the UK three women die from cervical cancer with another eight diagnosed and facing an uncertain future. In addition around 300 000 women a year are told they have an abnormality that might require treatment. Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust (<A HREF="http://www.jostrust.org.uk">http://www.jostrust.org.uk</A>) is the UK's only charity dedicated to those affected by cervical cancer and cervical abnormalities. We are a national charity and our head office is in London, UK; we have four full-time members of staff.</p> </sec> <sec id="s2"><st>What originally happened to create a need for this organisation?</st> <p>The charity was set up by James Maxwell in memory of his wife Jo, who died from cervical cancer at the age of 40 years. Following Jo's diagnosis she (and James) had difficulty finding good information about every aspect of cervical cancer. It was their hope that one day everyone would have easy...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Quilliam, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2012-100316</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2012-100316</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Organisation factfile</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>134</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>135</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/136-a?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Reanalysis of data from the Million Women Study]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/136-a?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>I was very pleased to see the article by Shapiro and colleagues<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> that was published online in the <I>Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health</I> <I>Care</I> in February 2012 (and that appears in print in this issue) but dismayed to see the emotional response from epidemiologists.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> This reanalysis of data from the so-called &lsquo;Million Women&rsquo; study<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref> raises important clinical concerns about the original strongly stated conclusions. I think it is essential that we see continuing debate about these complex epidemiological studies, where results are open to different interpretations.</p> <p>Putting emotions aside, there are some problems with the original analysis of the Million Women Study (MWS). This type of study cannot make allowances for every possible bias, and as we are all aware &lsquo;big is not necessarily better&rsquo; when biases are present. The statistically significant differences seen in the MWS are still very small,...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fraser, I. S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2012-100332</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2012-100332</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Reanalysis of data from the Million Women Study]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Letters to the editor</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>136</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>136</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/136-b?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[What really matters is the menopausal woman!]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/136-b?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Yet again scientists and epidemiologists are publicly debating the controversies around the previously reported risks of HRT (hormone replacement therapy). Is this further publicity deserved? The impact of studies such as the Million Women Study (MWS)<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> and Women's Health Initiative (WHI)<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> has been profound, leading to significant reductions in the use of HRT. This has understandably affected millions of menopausal women globally who deserve to be fully informed of any doubts that may exist concerning the studies and should be aware of the debate.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref> <cross-ref type="bib" refid="R4">4</cross-ref></p> <p>Ever since these papers were published the headlines in the popular press have been biased towards the &lsquo;bad news&rsquo; messages, resulting in our patients feeling confused and under pressure to stop HRT. Following a recent web-based survey 70% of women who came off their HRT were below the age of 50 years. More importantly, had these...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Panay, N., Currie, H., Morris, E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2012-100329</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2012-100329</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[What really matters is the menopausal woman!]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Letters to the editor</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>136</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>137</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/137?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Difference between drospirenone-containing oral contraceptives and other oral contraceptives related to risk of venous thromboembolism]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/137?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>We wish to comment on the Dinger and Shapiro commentary article published in the January 2012 issue of this Journal.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref></p> <p>Following the publication of papers regarding the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) with combined oral contraceptives (COCs) we would like to share some information regarding comparison between drospirenone-containing COCs and other COCs in Croatia. This short study was conducted during the 3-year period 2008&ndash;2010 using data on drug utilisation and data on side effects from the Agency for Medicinal Products and Medical Devices of Croatia (HALMED). The total female population aged 15&ndash;49 years was about 1 050 000. Like other COCs in Croatia, drospirenone/ethinylestradiol (DRSP/EE) is issued on private prescription in pharmacies. They are usually prescribed by gynaecologists, but may also be prescribed by other specialists. The DRSP-containing COC, Yasmin&reg;, existed in the Croatian market from 2005, but the new DRSP-containing COC, Yaz&reg;, was introduced in 2010.</p>...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Leppee, M., Culig, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2012-100297</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2012-100297</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Difference between drospirenone-containing oral contraceptives and other oral contraceptives related to risk of venous thromboembolism]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Letters to the editor</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>137</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>138</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/138-a?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Challenge of HIV testing in low prevalence settings]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/138-a?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>The article on HIV testing in abortion clinics provides a compelling argument for normalising HIV testing and making it part of our general medical care.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> Similar discussions regarding approaches to HIV testing in low prevalence settings are ongoing in general practice.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> <cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref></p> <p>We recently reviewed the recorded HIV status of patients from countries of high HIV prevalence (&gt;1%) in our practice in Portsmouth, UK (an area with an HIV prevalence of less than 0.2%), identifying 124 patients born in sub-Saharan African countries.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R4">4</cross-ref> Among these patients there were a variety of ages and ethnic groups. In 90% of these patients no HIV status was recorded.</p> <p>We were then faced with a dilemma. Based on 2008 UK National Guidelines for HIV testing, HIV testing should be routinely offered to people from countries of high HIV prevalence.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R5">5</cross-ref> However, no further guidance is...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Smith, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2011-100265</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2011-100265</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Challenge of HIV testing in low prevalence settings]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Letters to the editor</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>138</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>138</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/138-b?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[HIV testing in abortion services]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/138-b?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>We read with interest the commentary by Sylvia Bates and the article by Briggs et al. regarding HIV testing in abortion services in the October 2011 issue of this Journal.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> <cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> In particular we note the statement about the lack of data in this area. We have recently conducted an audit of this topic in our integrated sexual health service.</p> <p>A total of 150 case notes of patients attending for pregnancy counselling prior to potential referral for a termination of pregnancy were analysed. Analysis was related to the offer of an HIV test, acceptance of the test and the reasons for declining the test. Overall 102/150 (68%) were offered the test and 21/102 (21%) accepted testing. Of the 81/102 who declined testing, 33 had recorded reasons in their notes for declining the test. Eight of these 33 patients stated that they had had the test...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Montford, D., Bhaduri, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2012-100312</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2012-100312</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[HIV testing in abortion services]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Letters to the editor</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>138</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>139</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/139?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Routine HIV testing in colposcopy]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/139?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>We read with interest the article by Briggs et al.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref>and associated commentary by Bates<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> suggesting a widening of HIV testing venues, to include termination of pregnancy services (TOP) and colposcopy services.</p> <p>The Homerton Hospital, East London, UK has been performing opt-out HIV testing in the TOP unit since April 2008 and has an uptake of 60%.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref> The HIV prevalence is 0.3%, higher than the genitourinary medicine or antenatal clinic. We initiated HIV testing in the colposcopy unit in September 2010 and report on the preliminary findings here.</p> <p>All women attending the colposcopy unit of Homerton Hospital between 1 September 2010 and 28 February 2011 were offered opt-out HIV testing at the time of their colposcopy appointment. HIV testing was performed by point of care testing (Insti&trade; HIV Antibody Test, Pasante Healthcare, Hove, UK) and results were given immediately. Any woman with a reactive...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Creighton, S., Dhairyawan, R., Millett, D., Stacey, L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2011-100274</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2011-100274</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Routine HIV testing in colposcopy]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Letters to the editor</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>139</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>139</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/140-a?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Emergency contraception prescribing in a GUM clinic: missed opportunities for improving sexual and reproductive health]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/140-a?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Since publication of the Sexual Health Strategy in England,<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> integration of UK sexual health services has been increasingly promoted. Such services may increase potential for screening and prevention, improve continuity of care and facilitate more efficient resource use.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> One concern about integration has been the need for further staff training.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> <cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref> However, integration may also be advantageous for training, facilitating skill sharing between professionals. The results of an audit of emergency contraception (EC) prescribing in the Edinburgh Genitourinary Medicine (GUM) clinic highlight the need for encouragement of such skill sharing.</p> <p>In 2006 the Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care (now the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare) Clinical Effectiveness Unit published UK guidance on the prescribing of EC.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R4">4</cross-ref> At the time of the audit EC was prescribed in our GUM clinic as levonorgestrel (LNG) with referral to...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Goodall, L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2011-100241</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2011-100241</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Emergency contraception prescribing in a GUM clinic: missed opportunities for improving sexual and reproductive health]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Letters to the editor</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>140</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>140</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/140-b?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Unintended pregnancy with subdermal implant following miscarriage: response to Rank letter]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/140-b?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Thank you for publishing Dr Rank's report of an unintended pregnancy with a subdermal implant following a miscarriage.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> While I agree with much of Dr Melvin's response on behalf of the Clinical Effectiveness Unit,<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> I think fundamentally the case highlights that continued reliance on apparent menstrual dates is flawed. Ultrasound dating of pregnancy has provided strong evidence that menstrual dates are frequently a poor guide to ovulation and conception timing. For this reason reliance on menstrual dates has largely been abandoned in obstetric practice. Surely it is time to review and revise guidance that relies on menstrual dates in contraceptive practice. While there is no practical tool for assessing how close to ovulation an individual woman may be, it is essential to continue taking and recording a menstrual history. However, appropriate counselling should inform women that it is not possible to detect a pregnancy for...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Pillai, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2012-100315</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2012-100315</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Unintended pregnancy with subdermal implant following miscarriage: response to Rank letter]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Letters to the editor</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>140</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>141</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/141-a?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Psychosexual bodywork: should we refer our patients, and if so why?]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/141-a?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>A recent Journal article<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> had the same effect on these readers as the mention of bodywork did at the workshop on vaginismus and sexual pain: a palpable shiver! However we recognise these feelings for what they are: discomfort, ignorance and fear. A casual glance at the article could lead to a misinterpretation that bodywork is a recognised part of psychosexual medicine. On deeper reading, it becomes clearer that this form of therapy is practised by only a small group of non-medical therapists who traditionally do not examine patients/clients. The Institute of Psychosexual Medicine (IPM) trains doctors in psychosexual medicine and fundamental to this training is the genital examination. During the examination, the doctor observes the reaction and emotions expressed by the patient as well as the feelings evoked in the doctor. In that short moment of vulnerability, a further shared understanding of the patient's problem can evolve....]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ewan, J., Domoney, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2011-100264</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2011-100264</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Psychosexual bodywork: should we refer our patients, and if so why?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Letters to the editor</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>141</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>141</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/141-b?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Psychosexual bodywork: should we refer our patients, and if so why?: author's response]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/141-b?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>I very much welcome the letter<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> from Drs Ewan and Domoney, and not only because it highlights the invaluable role played by the &lsquo;secret army&rsquo; of psychosexually-aware doctors as well as the crucial contribution to that role made by the Institute of Psychosexual Medicine. I welcome the letter because, as I made clear in my original article, there are a plethora of arguments both for and against the psychosexual bodywork approach, and I firmly believe that informed debate about these arguments will serve to bring both advocates and opposers to a place where best practice is clarified, actioned and maintained. If my article has stimulated such debate not only in the Journal but also for organisations, for practices and for individual practitioners, then I&rsquo;m delighted.</p>
<p><fn><no>Competing interests</no><p>None.</p>
</fn></p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Quilliam, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2011-100268</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2011-100268</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Psychosexual bodywork: should we refer our patients, and if so why?: author's response]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Letters to the editor</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>141</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>141</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/141-c?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[First name, surname or number: how to call a patient in the waiting room?]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/141-c?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>In sexual health services the first interaction between providers and service users typically occurs when patients are called from the waiting area; getting the greeting right is thus important for the quality of the consultation.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> Confidentiality is one of the key functions sexual and reproductive health patients expect from our service<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> and therefore some may choose to register under a pseudonym, rather than risk having their identity divulged. Calling patients by their first name could be perceived as unearned familiarity,<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref> calling patients by their surname may disclose their identity and calling patients by a number may be impersonal. It is not clear for general<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> <cross-ref type="bib" refid="R4">4</cross-ref> and sexual health services how best to address our service users and most services will have experienced complaints from patients about the way they have been called from the waiting room. This triggered us...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sauer, U., Mohan, S., Pittrof, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2012-100293</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2012-100293</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[First name, surname or number: how to call a patient in the waiting room?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Letters to the editor</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>141</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>142</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/142?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Experiences and perceptions of Muslim and non-Muslim women during prenatal screening: a comparative study in Flanders and Brussels, Belgium]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/142?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Despite the widespread use of prenatal screening, women's perceptions and experiences of prenatal care have only recently been addressed in scientific research.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> Several studies show that perceptions of and participation in prenatal testing can be quite different among women of different ethnic, cultural and social backgrounds.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> <cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref> Especially little is known about how Muslim women experience prenatal care in a Western society.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R4">4</cross-ref> Our aim was to examine how these experiences and perceptions differ from the experiences and perceptions of non-Muslim women in Flanders and Brussels in Belgium.</p> <p>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Muslim and non-Muslim women. The respondents for this qualitative study were recruited through the maternity departments of three university hospitals and one general hospital. The study was approved by the ethics committees of the hospitals where this study took place.</p> <p>A total of 15 Muslim and 15 non-Muslim women...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[De Vleminck, A., Deschepper, R., Foulon, W., Louckx, F.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2012-100306</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2012-100306</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Experiences and perceptions of Muslim and non-Muslim women during prenatal screening: a comparative study in Flanders and Brussels, Belgium]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Letters to the editor</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>142</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>143</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/143-a?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Short-term complications of the Mirena(R) IUS vs the copper IUD in Muslim women]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/143-a?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Few studies have compared side effects and removal rates of copper and hormonal intrauterine devices (IUDs). We have recently completed a randomised controlled trial of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (IUS) (Mirena&reg;, Schering, Germany) and the Copper 380&reg; A (IUD) (India) in 160 Muslim women aged 20&ndash;35 years attending the Ayat Health Centre in Iran.</p> <p>Women who presented requesting an IUD for contraception were recruited for the study. After consent was obtained women were randomised (using block randomisation) to either the copper IUD or Mirena. Each woman completed a questionnaire at 1, 3 and 6 months post-insertion to assess side effects.</p> <p>There was a higher incidence of dysmenorrhea and backache at 3 months with the copper device. Those women with a Mirena had higher rates of spotting and bleeding at 1, 3 and 6 months and higher rates of headache and breast tenderness at 3 and 6 months.</p> <p>Menstruation and...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ramazanzadeh, F., Tavakolianfar, T., Shariat, M., Mashhadi, I. E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2011-100210</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2011-100210</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Short-term complications of the Mirena(R) IUS vs the copper IUD in Muslim women]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Letters to the editor</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>143</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>143</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/143-b?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Profile of female sterilisation clients at eight clinics in Eastern India]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/143-b?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Of 13 505 women who underwent voluntary sterilisation procedures at eight clinics operated by DKT/Janani in the states of Bihar and Jharkhand, India in 2007, the average age of the sterilisation clients was 29 years. The average parity was 3.6. A very high percentage of these clients came from districts with relatively low literacy and high infant mortality, a reflection of the rural and underdeveloped nature of this part of the subcontinent.</p> <p>Despite a controversial and chequered history of sterilisation generally, the sterilisation of women in India today represents the overwhelming choice of Indian couples. About 37% of married women of reproductive age have chosen sterilisation,<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> representing a remarkable 77% of all persons practising modern methods of birth control in this country.</p> <p>During the 1960s, several Indian states began providing compensation to cover the out-of-pocket costs for couples who accepted sterilisation. At that time, vasectomy was by...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jha, N., Harvey, P. D.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2011-100201</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2011-100201</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Profile of female sterilisation clients at eight clinics in Eastern India]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Letters to the editor</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>143</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>144</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/145?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Dr Yvonne Stedman: MBBS, FFSRH, Dip GUM]]></title>
<link>http://jfprhc.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/38/2/145?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Yvonne Florence Stedman was born in Bulawayo, then Southern Rhodesia, in 1952. Her father was in the Royal Air Force and was regularly posted to distant locations around the world. She was the youngest of three children. The eldest died as a baby and David, her brother, had Down's syndrome.</p> <p>The family moved to St Athan in South Wales when Yvonne was a toddler and then to Stroud, Gloucestershire. After a posting in Singapore for 3 years the family returned to Gloucestershire in 1963 and Yvonne completed her schooling at Stroud Girls High School. There she was Head Girl even though she was the youngest in her class. She qualified from Newcastle University in 1975 where she did her first house job, moving to Hope Hospital in Salford for her second job and to marry Michael.</p> <p>Yvonne thought she might want to specialise in psychiatry but after a 6-month...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Webb, A., Kishen, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-27T08:04:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jfprhc-2012-100336</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:familyplanning;jfprhc-2012-100336</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Faculty of Family Planning &#x26; Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians &#x26; Gynaecologists</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Dr Yvonne Stedman: MBBS, FFSRH, Dip GUM]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Obituary</prism:section>
<prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>145</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>145</prism:endingPage>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>
