These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Contraceptive services in school-based clinics: the Baltimore experience.
    Journal: Contracept Rep; 1993 May; 4(2):4-6. PubMed ID: 12286472.
    Abstract:
    327 school-based and school-linked health clinics in 33 US states and Puerto Rico provide comprehensive adolescent health care and social services to underserved populations. In January 1993, the Laurence Paquin School (grades 7-12) for pregnant students and teenage mothers in Baltimore, Maryland, began a private-funded pilot programs offering students subdermal contraceptive implants as an option. The Baltimore City Health Department wants to offer the implants to students at 5 other high school-based clinics beginning in the autumn of 1993. Teenagers at schools other than Paquin School already receive information about the implants and can be referred to a Baltimore City family planning clinic, a Planned Parenthood clinic, or other health provider. Before the pilot program, the Health Department identified a group of providers who could provide accurate information about implants and dispel misconceptions about insertion and possible side effects in order to guarantee adolescents access to implants. Even though Maryland law does not require parental consent, all Baltimore school-based clinic staff try to involve parents during counseling and treatment. In fact, as of May 1993, all Paquin students accepting Norplant had present at the two mandatory counseling sessions and actual insertion procedure. During the counseling sessions, they heard repeated recommendations to also use condoms to protect against AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases. Students at Paquin received information again prior to insertion, thereby granting them the opportunity to ask more questions or to decide against the implants. The pilot program received negative media, but the students and the principal agreed that the media disregarded the reality of the students' lives. Further, the parents and students asked that the implants be made available and the health department did not impose them on the students as many groups and the media implied.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]