The vast reach of medical misinformation, particularly on social media, is a pressing issue for healthcare professionals. With the COVID-19 pandemic and the emerging Monkeypox public health crisis, physicians and researchers continue to educate the general public on safe, research-tested, effective treatment plans. But engaging in conversations about the dangers of medical misinformation is difficult, especially if the participants believe they are unable to speak openly without ridicule or judgment. Himmelfarb’s new Correcting Misinformation with Patients research guide provides resources, readings, educational videos and more to help you navigate conversations with your patients when addressing medical misinformation.
Correcting medical misinformation is important because many people do not have the background or expertise to assess the accuracy of information that is spread via social media. This can cause lasting harm that could even result in serious illness or death. A recent NPR article examined how some patients rely on unproven and dangerous COVID-19 treatment plans:
“But for Americans like Stephanie who don’t trust the medical establishment, there’s a network of fringe medical doctors, natural healers and internet personalities ready to push unproven cures for COVID. And a shady black market where you can buy them. Stephanie was plugged into that alternative medical network, and doctors say it ultimately cost her life.” [Brumfiel, 2022]
While this research guide is filled with valuable resources, consider starting with the Narrative & Graphic Medicine section which offers a definition of ‘graphic medicine,’ medicine related graphics and books, and more to help you engage with patients. The Misinformation and Cultural Competency tab contains information that explores how to engage with different cultural groups in a respectful manner. Finally, the Communication Techniques tab offers communication methods you can use with your patients.
In the Confronting Health Misinformation advisory document from the Office of the Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek H. Murthy writes “Limiting the spread of health misinformation is a moral and civic imperative that will require a whole-of-society effort.” [Office of the Surgeon General, 2021]. Our Correcting Misinformation with Patients Guide will empower you to engage in open, respectful dialogue with your patients and provide them with the resources to locate accurate health information.
While we continue to endure the ongoing pandemic, it is more important than ever to stay aware of emerging health threats. The following are some recommended websites for staying current..
The CDC newsroom provides information on regional outbreaks such as salmonella and monkeypox, vaccine effectiveness, and a plethora of COVID resources as part of their COVID-19 Digital Press Kit. They also have a digital archive that contains the previous three years of their news releases.
Remember that the source of your information matters. Many popular resources today are misleading in their facts, and are tailored specifically to extract a response from you, not to inform you.
In a developing situation where every minute counts; ensure that your sources are based on credible sources. Your time and your research matters. If you need support from the Himmelfarb library, remember to ask a librarian! We are here to assist in your medical research endeavors.
On July 26, 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) into law which provided legal protections for disabled people. To commemorate the signing of this key piece of legislation, July 26th is known as National Disability Independence Day.
According to ADA.gov, “The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in everyday activities...The ADA guarantees that people with disabilities have the same opportunities as everyone else to enjoy employment opportunities, purchase goods and services, and participate in state and local government programs.” (U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, 2022) The ADA defines a person with a disability as someone who:
Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities
Has a history or record of such an impairment (such as cancer that is in remission), or
Is perceived by others as having such an impairment (such as a person who has scars from a severe burn). (U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, 2022)
The ADA is split into five subsections which details the protections disabled people are given. While the ADA prevents discrimination against disabled people due to their disabilities, many disability activists remain vocal about the inequalities disabled people continue to face. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many disability rights activists spoke up on how COVID safety measures were key to keeping disabled and severely ill people safe. When these measures were lifted many disabled people were unable to fully participate in society:
“Disability rights and inclusion activist Imani Barbarin started the #MyDisabledLifeIsWorthy hashtag…in response to [CDC Director Dr. Rochelle] Walensky’s Jan. 7 appearance on Good Morning America, in which the presence of underlying conditions in those who have died from COVID-19 was framed as ‘encouraging news’...That Walensky’s remarks angered so many in the disability community–who took to Twitter to speak out about feeling unprotected and unvalued at a time when opposition to mask-wearing and vaccine mandates remains considerable, and accessibility is compromised–is emblematic of nearly two years of ongoing frustration with a society that is rushing to return to business as usual while leaving high-risk individuals isolated and vulnerable.”
(Pagano, 2022)
Disability rights activists point out that accessibility features allow disabled people to engage with society and also benefits able bodied people. As disability rights activist Kings Floyd notes in their TEDx talk Lessons in Making Aging Accessible, From a Millenial: “If we cannot support the community in which we live everyday, to be able to connect, to be able to socialize, to be able to be accessible, we are not planning for our future and we are not planning for our success.” (Floyd, 2019)
Whether you’re a new Himmelfarb Library user, or have been using the library for years, chances are there are things you don’t know about us. We’d like to take this opportunity to help you get to know us, or get reacquainted with us and all that we have to offer!
Getting Help is Easy! Just Ask Us!
Whether you need help finding a specific full-text article, identifying a resource for your research, formatting a citation, or have a more in-depth question about conducting a literature review, a systematic review or managing your data, our reference librarians have the knowledge and know-how to help! Stop by our reference desk, chat with us using the “Ask Us” button on our website, call us (202-994-2850), email us (himmelfarb@gwu.edu), or text us (202-601-3525) for help. We look forward to answering your questions, large or small!
Our Collections
Himmelfarb has extensive collections that include 125+ databases, 6,700+ ebooks, and 6,500+ electronic journals that are available 24/7 from on and off-campus! We also have thousands of print books in our basement level stacks that are available for check out. Most books can be borrowed for three weeks. But don’t worry - if you need more time, you can renew most items twice by stopping by or calling our Circulation Desk (202-994-2962), or logging into your library account.
Remember that masking is still required in the library in accordance with GW’s current mask protocols. Please wear a mask while spending time in Himmelfarb for your own safety, and for the safety of those around you. Hand sanitizer is also available throughout Himmelfarb.
Himmelfarb Tour
Take a quick virtual tour of Himmelfarb to help you get acquainted with our space!
Study Rooms & IT Support
We have plenty of study rooms available on our second and third floors. Study rooms must be reserved and can be booked up to seven days in advance. The SMHS Technology Support Center is located on the third floor in the Bloedorn AV Study Center for all of your IT support needs.
Technology Resources
Himmelfarb’s Bloedorn Technology Center, located on our third floor, offers statistical software, including SPSS, Stata, SAS, NVivo, MATLAB, and Atlas.ti on select computers. We also have equipment such as digital camcorders and digital voice recorders for loan to support curricular development and activities, but these items must be reserved in advance.
All of Himmelfarb’s electronic resources are available 24/7 from anywhere! Just login with your GW UserID and password, or via the GW VPN. If you have trouble accessing any of our resources, reach out to us (himmelfarb@gwu.edu) so we can help troubleshoot, resolve issues and restore access as soon as possible.
Services and Support
Instruction:
We have services to help faculty and instructors use and connect Himmelfarb’s resources in the classroom. Our Durable Links Service will check, fix, or create new links to our resources that work from both on and off campus so your students will be able to access materials from anywhere. Our Course Reserves service provides access to electronic, print, and streaming course materials. Do you use a book in a course that Himmelfarb doesn’t currently own? Contact Acquisitions Librarian, Ian Roberts, and we will consider purchasing items for use in your courses.
Research Support:
Whether you are a faculty member, researcher, or student, Himmelfarb can help you be successful in your research! Are you working on your Culminating Experience project? Himmelfarb librarians provide individual consultations to help get your project started - and keep it going.
Are you working on a systematic review and could use some support? Check out our Systematic Reviews Guide for in-depth information on the process. Himmelfarb also provides access to Covidence, an online tool that streamlines parts of the systematic review process such as screening references, and creating and populating data extraction forms. You can also use our Systematic Review Service for additional librarian support!
Check out our tutorials for help with navigating databases, using specific software such as ArcGix, MATLAB, RefWorks, SPSS, or Camtasia, and for help with a wide array of research topics. Our Resources for Early Career Researchers Guide can help new researchers understand and navigate the research and publishing landscape. Check out our Scholarly Publishing Guide for information and resources related to publishing, researcher profiles, author rights, and measuring the impact of your research. Scholarly communications webinars and short tutorials are also available on this guide!
Himmelfarb Library Can Help!
Whether you are a student, faculty, or staff member, Himmelfarb Library has the resources and knowledge to help make your studies and research successful. From study space, extensive collections of resources, to expertise in systematic reviews and publishing, we have something for everyone!
Starting in January of 2023, NIH will put into effect a new Data Management and Sharing Policy for grant applications due on or after the 25th of that month. This will replace the existing policy which has been in place since 2003. The purpose of the new policy is to ensure that the data from NIH funded research is accessible and transparent, both to enable validation of research results and to make the data available for reuse. To see specifically what has changed, this NIH web page outlines the current and new policies side by side.
In order to help researchers prepare for the new policy, the NIH has a new website on data sharing. The website is meant to help researchers determine which policies apply to their projects and provide tools and resources to aid compliance. Below is a video which introduces the new website and how it can be used:
NIH will also present two webinars on the policy, starting with:
GW’s Himmelfarb and Gelman Libraries are preparing to assist researchers with questions about compliance. At Himmelfarb, you can contact Sara Hoover (shoover@gwu.edu), Metadata and Scholarly Publishing Librarian, and Paul Levett (prlevett@gwu.edu), Reference and Instructional Librarian. At Gelman you can contact Megan Potterbusch (mpotterbusch@gwu.edu), Data Services Librarian.
June 2013: Odin Lloyd is found dead, and professional football player Aaron Hernandez is charged with first-degree murder. But could brain damage have influenced Hernandez’s actions?
Hernandez, who was a tight end for the New England Patriots, already had a long history of violent and criminal behavior. In 2015, he was found guilty of Lloyd’s murder and received a life sentence.
Two years later, while in the process of filing an appeal for the murder conviction, Hernandez, 27 years old, committed suicide. Hernandez was posthumously diagnosed with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) at the Boston University CTE Center, which has studied the brains of over 300 deceased football players (Pfeiffer, 2018). This diagnosis led to speculation that Hernandez’s deadly behavior might have been influenced or caused by intense traumatic injury to his brain.
CTE is a neurodegenerative disorder that develops because of repeated trauma to the head. Over time, repetitive head impacts, including both concussive and subconcussive blows, lead to CTE, but the exact amount of trauma required is unknown. CTE is a progressive disease that occurs in a number of stages (either three or four depending on how you divide it up) linked to changes in neuropathology (McKee et al., 2013). The first stage can include confusion, dizziness, and headache. The second stage can include memory loss and impulsivity. The third and fourth stages can include dementia, speech impediments, sensory processing disorders, tremors, depression, and suicidal behavior.
The majority of documented CTE cases have occurred in athletes in contact sports like football, wrestling, and boxing. CTE is common among this population: for example, a recent cohort study found that in a sample of 202 deceased football players, 87% were diagnosed postmortem with CTE – including 110 of the 111 NFL players in the sample (Mez et al, 2017).
CTE is a tauopathy, like Alzheimer’s, described as “a progressive neurodegeneration characterized by the widespread deposition of hyperphosphorylated tau (p-tau) as neurofibrillary tangles” (McKee et al., 2013). As of now, there is no test that can definitively determine the existence of CTE in a living person. The diagnosis can only occur during an autopsy because it requires the removal of the brain in order to analyze the tissue (Pfeiffer, 2018). Although CTE can only be diagnosed posthumously, it should be considered likely in patients with Traumatic Encephalopathy Syndrome (TES) and one or more CTE biomarkers (DynaMed). There is no known cure for CTE, but some symptoms can be managed with medications and behavioral therapies.
At his autopsy, Hernandez was determined to have stage-3 CTE, never before seen in a person as young as him (Pfeiffer, 2018). Did CTE cause Hernandez to kill Lloyd? And if so, is that a viable defense against a murder charge? What do you think?
Do you know of another interesting true crime case with medical connections? Email Rachel Brill at rgbrill@gwu.edu.
References and Further Resources
Bryant C & Clark J. What’s the Deal with Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy? [Podcast episode]. Stuff You Should Know. November 2016.
Dillard, J. Amy and Tucker, Lisa A. “Is C.T.E. a Defense for Murder?” September 2017. The New York Times.
On June 24, 2022, The Supreme Court announced a 6-3 ruling on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case that overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and ended the constitutional right to obtain an abortion. As a result of this ruling, individual states can now decide whether or not abortion access will remain legal, and what restrictions can be placed on abortion care within their state.
Following the news of this decision, GW health leaders and experts released statements and responses that expressed deep concern for the implications this decision will have on medicine and public health. Barbara Bass (Dean of the GW School of Medicine and Health Sciences and CEO of the GW Medical Faculty Associates), Lynn Goldman (Dean of the GW Milken Institute School of Public Health), and Pamela Slaven-Lee (Interim Dean of the GW School of Nursing) released a joint statement in response to this decision. The statement highlighted the health ramifications of carrying an unintended pregnancy to term, including “a higher risk of maternal death, preterm birth, and other serious health problems” (Bass et al., 2022). The statement went on to assert that the decision “disrupts the oath of physicians and health care providers to provide care that, first and foremost, honors personal autonomy and the unwavering commitment to provide care with safe and effective therapies” (Bass et al., 2022).
Amita Vyas, Director of the GW Maternal and Child Health Center told GW Today that “every single adult and child in this country will be affected by this decision” (GW Today, 2022). Vyas went on to express concern based on evidence-based studies that have shown that abortion restrictions lead to higher maternal mortality rates.
These statements from GW experts are grounded in evidence-based research. This post will examine what the evidence-based research says about abortion-related morbidity and mortality rates, and how restrictive abortion laws affect health disparities and health outcomes. This post will also explore what the evidence shows about whether or not restrictive abortion laws prevent or reduce abortion rates, the impacts of restrictive abortion laws on patient care, and how health care providers can prepare for the consequences of this ruling in their practices.
Abortion and Morbidity and Mortality
Numerous studies have examined the rates of morbidity (an illness or disease) and mortality (death) related to abortion. Stevenson’s 2021 study investigated the impact of a total abortion ban in the United States on pregnancy-related mortality. This study estimated that a total abortion ban would result in a 7% increase in pregnancy-related deaths during the first year of the ban, and a 21% increase in subsequent years (Stevenson, 2021). Black, Indigenous, and people of color populations would likely experience even higher rates of mortality: an estimated first-year pregnancy-related death increase of 12% among Non-Hispanic Black people and a 6% increase among Hispanic people, followed by subsequent year increases of 33% among Non-Hispanic Black people and 18% among Hispanic people (Stevenson, 2021).
Despite the 1973 Roe decision, access to abortion care has steadily become more restrictive in the United States since the mid-1990s. Addante et al. published a retrospective study examining maternal mortality rates in the United States between 1995 and 2017, during which time, the number of states with restrictive abortion laws rose from 13 states to 29 states. (Addante et al., 2021). States with neutral abortion laws decreased from 32 states to only 12 states, while states with protective abortion laws rose slightly from 5 states to 9 states during this time period (Addante et al., 2021). The mean maternal mortality rates in 1995 were similar across states with restrictive, neutral, and protective abortion laws, but by 2017, maternal mortality rates in states with restrictive abortion laws were 70% higher than in states with protective abortion laws (Addante et al., 2021).
Restrictive abortion laws can contribute to increased maternal mortality rates in a variety of ways. Women who have high-risk pregnancies, which increase the risk of poor obstetrical outcomes, may be less able to terminate a pregnancy for medical reasons in states with restrictive abortion laws (Addante et al., 2021). Additionally, there is often a reduction in sexual and reproductive healthcare services, such as access to contraception, that are provided by abortion clinics when clinics are forced to close due to restrictive abortion laws (Addante et al., 2021). Verma and Shainker’s 2020 study found that a 20% reduction in Planned Parenthood clinics resulted in an 8% increase in the maternal mortality rate (Verma & Shainker, 2020).
Karletsos et al.’s 2021 study explored whether states with gestational age limit abortion laws experienced changes in infant mortality rates. Between 2005 and 2017, 13 states passed gestational age limit laws (Karletsos et al., 2021). The study found that infants born as a result of gestational age laws had a 3.6% increased infant mortality rate (Karletsos et al., 2021). The Turnaway Study by Foster and Kimport in 2013 found that people who sought an abortion after the gestational age of 20 weeks experienced difficulty in finding a provider, as well as financial hardships associated with the cost of the procedure and travel-related costs (Foster & Kimport, 2013).
Abortion Access and Health Disparities
Studies have shown that limiting access to abortions has a disproportionally negative impact on underserved groups, thus exacerbating already existing health disparities. Low-income populations and those experiencing poverty are the most at risk of being impacted by the negative effects of anti-abortion laws. Many people who seek abortions cite not being able to afford a child (or another child), negative impacts on work, school, and/or the ability to care for other children among the factors influencing their decision (Boonstra, 2016). In addition, low-income individuals seeking an abortion may “delay or forgo paying utility bills or rent, or buying food for themselves and their children” in order to afford the procedure (Boonstra, 2016).
According to 2014 data from the Guttmacher Institute, 75% of patients who seek abortions were poor or low-income (Verma & Shainker, 2020). The 1976 Hyde Amendment, which restricted access to reproductive healthcare by banning federal funding for abortions under Medicaid, the Indian Health Service, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, had a disproportionately negative impact on Black women (Salganicoff et al., 2020). 30% of black women and 24% of Hispanic women between the ages of 15 and 44 have Medicaid coverage, compared to only 14% of their white counterparts (Boonstra, 2016).
States-level gestational age laws also tend to negatively impact lower-income people who “were unable to obtain earlier care owing to a lack of financial resources, transportation, child care, and other constraints” (Karletsos et al., 2021, p.788). Forced maternity only enhances these hardships as low-income individuals often experience barriers to “adequate prenatal, postpartum, and other health care for themselves and their infants” in addition to the barriers experienced in affording living expenses and access to resources to keep their newborns healthy (Karletsos et al., 2021, p.791).
According to Verma and Shainker, “unintended pregnancy rates remain highest among Black women, Hispanic women, and women of lower socioeconomic status, comprising the same groups with the highest abortion rates” (Verma & Shainker, 2020, p. 4). The article goes on to point out that these are also the groups facing the greatest risk of maternal mortality since they tend to be less likely to have health insurance, further limiting access to family planning and preventive health care services (Verma & Shainker, 2020).
Increased Rates of Abortion
While anti-abortion advocates often seek abortion bans in an effort to deter abortions, evidence shows that legal restrictions on abortions do not eliminate abortions or result in decreased abortion rates. Instead, legal restrictions simply “increase the likelihood that abortions will be performed unsafely, as they compel women to seek clandestine procedures” (Fathalla, 2020, p. 8). Latin American countries have the world’s strictest abortion bans but have the highest rates of abortion in the world at 32 abortions for every 1,000 women (Oberman, 2022). In contrast, Western Europe has the world’s lowest abortion rates (12 abortions per 1,000 women), with some of the world's most liberal abortion laws that provide easy access to safe abortions (Oberman, 2022).
The largest predictor of abortion rates is the percentage of unwanted or unintended pregnancies - not the legal status of abortion (Oberman, 2022). Western Europe not only provides easy and legal access to safe abortions, but modern contraception use is high, thus diminishing unintended and unwanted pregnancies and the need for abortions (Fathalla, 2020). “Public health experience has demonstrated that women’s need for abortion can be reduced by making contraceptive information and services available, accessible, and affordable” (Fathalla, 2020, p. 6). When the Affordable Care Act was passed mandating health insurance coverage for contraception in 2010, unintended pregnancy rates dropped by 15% (Obermann, 2022).
Complications of Unsafe and Unmanaged Abortions
“When abortion is legally restricted or otherwise inaccessible, girls, women, and those who care about them look outside formal medical care to end pregnancies” (Harris & Grossman, 2020, p. 1,029). This can often end in unsafe or self-managed abortions, often through medication.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), abortion is considered safe when it is “done with a method recommended by the WHO that is appropriate to the pregnancy duration and if the person providing or supporting the abortion is trained” (Fathalla, 2020, p. 3). Abortions are considered less safe if it meets one of the criteria (method or trained provider), but not both (Fathalla, 2020). WHO estimates that between 4.7% and 13.2% of maternal deaths each year are a result of unsafe abortions worldwide (WHO, 2021). The health risks resulting from unsafe abortions can include incomplete abortion, hemorrhage, infection, uterine perforation, and genital tract and/or internal organ damage (WHO, 2021). Unsafe abortions are a leading cause of maternal morbidity resulting in almost 300,000 maternal deaths per year worldwide (Rodgers et al., 2021).
Aside from the very real health risks associated with unsafe abortions, there is also a significant financial cost. A 2020 systematic review found that the annual cost of abortion care in the United States was $134 million (Soleimani et al., 2020, p. 63). WHO estimated that the financial burden on health care systems from complications of unsafe abortions in developing countries was $553 million per year not including a loss of $922 million in household income that is lost due to long-term disability resulting from unsafe abortions (WHO, 2021). By comparison, for patients requiring post-abortion care for unsafe abortions, the yearly cost of contraception supplies and services amounts to just 3% to 12% of the cost of providing post-abortion care (Rogers et al., 2021).
One response to the increase in restrictive abortion laws has been self-induced or self-managed abortions, often through medications obtained outside of a medical setting (Conti, & Cahill, 2019). Medication-based abortions have made finding an abortion both easier and safer (Oberman, 2022, p. 6). Misoprostol is the most common and most widely available abortion medicine and is classified as an “essential medicine” by WHO for its “vital role in reducing deaths from postpartum hemorrhages, miscarriages, and illegal abortions” (Oberman, 2022, p. 7). Patients managing abortion through medications such as mifepristone and misoprostol can experience bleeding, cramping, and expulsion of pregnancy tissue at home (Harris & Grossman, 2020).
Pregnancies ended through medications are often “clinically indistinguishable from those who have had uncomplicated spontaneous pregnancy loss” (Harris & Grossman, 2020, p. 1,029). Telemedicine could be an essential tool in enabling patients experiencing financial or geographical difficulties when seeking an abortion to receive medication abortions (Verma & Shainker, 2020). Unfortunately, “abortion pill” bans have also become a target for states that seek to pass restrictive abortion laws.
Physician Preparedness for Restricted Abortion Access
As states pass more restrictive abortion laws following the recent Supreme Court decision, health care providers are faced with helping patients navigate the new abortion landscape and “must become familiar with the normal course of self-managed abortion with medications and its rare complications, as well as complications of unsafe abortions” (Harris & Grossman, 2020, p. 1,029).
In Harris and Grossman’s 2020 review article, they explore potential circumstances physicians and health care providers may be facing as abortion laws become more restrictive. While many patients who seek care will only require confirmation that a medication-induced abortion is complete, others will require outpatient interventions for incomplete abortions (Harris & Grossman, 2020). “In contrast, those using unsafe methods may need lifesaving critical care for sepsis, hemorrhage, pelvic-organ injury, or toxic exposures” (Harris & Grossman, 2020, p. 1,029). Patients managing abortion through a clinically supervised combination of mifepristone and misoprostol rarely experience major complications that require hospitalization, surgery, or blood transfusions, which occur in only 0.3% of cases (Harris & Grossman, 2020). However, physicians should be aware of other ineffective and less safe methods of self-managed abortions, such as herbal remedies that are not only ineffective but can cause toxic reactions and even death (Harris & Grossman, 2020).
Physicians and healthcare professionals need to be increasingly prepared to provide “prompt, nonjudgmental, evidence-based care” when patients present after self-managed abortions or following unsafe abortions (Harris & Grossman, 2020, p. 1,037). Additionally, health care facilities need to develop policies and care protocols that prioritize the safety of pregnant patients (Harris & Grossman, 2020).
Summary
The evidence shows that restrictive abortion laws not only fail to eliminate abortions or decrease the number of abortions taking place but instead increase the rate of abortions. In addition, the evidence demonstrates that morbidity and mortality rates related to abortion increase as a result of more restrictive abortion laws, having a disproportionate effect on Black, Indigenous, and people of color communities, including a 33% increase in pregnancy-related death among Black people. Limits on abortion access disproportionately negatively impact low-income groups by increasing barriers to necessary healthcare services, thus exacerbating already existing health disparities.
References:
Addante, A. N., Eisenberg, D. L., Valentine, M. C., Leonard, J., Maddox, K., & Hoofnagle, M. H. (2021). The association between state-level abortion restrictions and maternal mortality in the United States, 1995-2017. Contraception, 104(5), 496–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2021.03.018
Council on Community Pediatrics (2016). Poverty and Child Health in the United States. Pediatrics, 137(4), e20160339. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-0339
Fathalla M. F. (2020). Safe abortion: The public health rationale. Best practice & research. Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 63, 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2019.03.010
Foster, D. G., & Kimport, K. (2013). Who seeks abortions at or after 20 weeks?. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 45(4), 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1363/4521013
Harris, L. H., & Grossman, D. (2020). Complications of unsafe and self-managed abortion. The New England Journal of Medicine, 382(11), 1029–1040. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1908412
Karletsos, D., Stoecker, C., Vilda, D., Theall, K. P., & Wallace, M. E. (2021). Association of state gestational age limit abortion laws with infant mortality. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 61(6), 787–794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2021.05.022
Oberman M. (2022). What will and won't happen when abortion is banned. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 9(1), lsac011. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsac011
Rodgers, Y., Coast, E., Lattof, S. R., Poss, C., & Moore, B. (2021). The macroeconomics of abortion: A scoping review and analysis of the costs and outcomes. PloS One, 16(5), e0250692. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250692
Soleimani Movahed, M., Husseini Barghazan, S., Askari, F., & Arab Zozani, M. (2020). The Economic Burden of Abortion and Its Complication Treatment Cares: A Systematic Review. Journal of Family & Reproductive Health, 14(2), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.18502/jfrh.v14i2.4354
Stevenson A. J. (2021). The pregnancy-related mortality impact of a total abortion ban in the United States: A research note on increased deaths due to remaining pregnant. Demography, 58(6), 2019–2028. https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370-9585908
Verma, N., & Shainker, S. A. (2020). Maternal mortality, abortion access, and optimizing care in an increasingly restrictive United States: A review of the current climate. Seminars in Perinatology, 44(5), 151269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semperi.2020.151269
Celebrate healthy vision month by checking out some of Himmelfarb Library’s top Ophthalmology e-book titles!
Vaughan & Ashbury’s General Ophthalmology: This title has served as a concise, current, and authoritative review of ophthalmology for medical and health professionals from medical students to practicing ophthalmologists for nearly six decades.
Kanski’s Clinical Ophthalmology: A Systematic Approach: This classic specialty textbook provides a great ophthalmology foundation for trainees and serves as a valuable reference for experienced practitioners. As a general ophthalmic textbook, this is the gold standard.
Taylor & Hoyt’s Pediatric Ophthalmology & Strabismus: This textbook provides authoritative coverage of pediatric ophthalmic conditions you’re likely to encounter in practice, including the latest clinical advances in etiology, diagnosis, and medical and surgical management.
Orbital Imaging: This handy reference and learning text is designed to answer questions brought up by interesting eye cases in clinic and present pertinent orbital pathologies including those likely to be seen on board exams.
Ophthalmology: Long considered one of ophthalmology’s premier texts, this book is still a go-to reference for virtually any topic within ophthalmology!
Ryan’s Retina: This book serves as a roadmap and resource for those who study, diagnose, and treat diseases of the retina.
Want to access these e-books from off-campus? Check out our Off-Campus Access Guide for tips and instructions! Or reach out to our reference staff with off-campus access questions.
It’s the time of year for outdoor gatherings, recreation, and events. While the idea of being outside, especially after being cooped up for so long may be appealing, it is fundamental to consider our skin, and how we can protect it. Yes, outdoor boating and barbecues may be important to us, but let’s not forget the SPF - Sun Protection Factor that can enable us to enjoy those outings that much more.
Skincancer.org reports that wearing SPF 15 can reduce the risk of squamous cell carcinoma by about 40 percent, and lower the risk of melanoma by 50 percent. Not only that, but sunscreen can also prevent wrinkles and aging.
Perhaps you, like me, are someone who forgets to keep sunscreen on hand! If you are struggling to keep your skin protected it might not hurt to consider always carrying a travel sized container!
Which sunscreen to use? Look for terminology that includes ‘Broad Spectrum’ which protects against both UVB, the rays that cause sunburn and UVA, the rays that cause premature aging. If you are uncertain of which SPF to use, the higher the number, the more protected your skin will be. If you plan on spending less time outside, SPF 15 should suffice but for any prolonged exposure to the sun your best bet is to use SPF 30 or higher.
Avoid cancer and aging, fight off the shrinking ozone layer. This season, why not protect your skin so that you can enjoy those hot summer days? Lastly, be sure to avoid products that contain benzene, which is a known carcinogen. For further education, the American Academy of Dermatology has an insightful FAQ on sunscreen.
Himmelfarb Library congratulates Laura Abate who was promoted to Library Director on July 1, 2022. Laura had been serving as interim Library Director since Anne Linton retired in January.
Laura Abate, Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library Director
Laura first joined Himmelfarb Library’s staff in 1999 as a reference librarian. She developed materials supporting medical informatics instruction for medical students and created a database and web interface for managing access to the library’s growing number of electronic resources. In 2003 Laura became Electronic Resources and Instructional Librarian and served in this role for 16 years. She managed the library’s electronic resources during the time that Himmelfarb made the transition to mostly electronic collections. She also played a key role in developing the curriculum for informatics for first and second year medical students in problem based learning. At the same time she expanded her role as a clinical librarian, frequently attending rounds for internal medicine residents and providing real time clinical information support for them. She was awarded Non-Medicine Attending of the Year by the Department of Medicine Housestaff for 2018-19.
In 2019 Laura was promoted to Head of Library Operations and the position was expanded to Associate Director of Library Operations in 2020. Laura oversaw all aspects of the Library’s web services and collections management, including budgeting and contract negotiations. She maintained her teaching role serving as an Adjunct Associate Professor for the Department of Medicine and Co-Director of the Informatics in the Health Sciences and Introduction to Systematic Review courses.
Let’s hear from Laura about her promotion and plans to lead Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library.
What inspired you to apply for the position and what are you most enjoying in your role as Library Director?
During my time at Himmelfarb Library, I’ve had several positions, worked my way through a lot of different duties, and seen major changes in our collections, services, and access. I don’t identify myself as someone who loves change, but I do like to solve problems, love to identify ways to improve our services and collections, and want to keep growing, learning, and honing my personal knowledge and skills. In short, being library director seemed like a big challenge and one that I was ready to take on. In terms of what I’m enjoying the most in this role, I love working with Himmelfarb’s staff and their creativity in continuously identifying ways to improve the library and to reflect the needs of the GW health sciences community.
What are your top priorities for the coming year?
Himmelfarb Library has seen major changes over the past two years and as I think about what comes next, I think about both renewal and assessment. I’m anxious to renew the library as a place for the GW health sciences community to meet, work, study, and socialize (not too loudly?). I am excited to continue to rebuild and hone our collections, and want to explore new ways that we can support teaching and learning, research and scholarly publishing, and clinical care. But, I also want to assess and continue to evolve - i.e. do we want to keep doing things as we do now or did prior to the pandemic, or are there alternative approaches that we should consider and explore. We take feedback from our user community seriously so please share your thoughts. I’m available in Himmelfarb 101 and can also be reached at leabate@gwu.edu or 202-994-8570.
