We describe the development, delivery, and evaluation of a program to support junior professionals to publish their work in a scientific journal. Conference delegates with an accepted abstract at the International Conference on Family Planning (ICFP), self-identifying as junior professionals and from a low- or middle-income country (LMIC) or working predominantly in LMIC settings, were eligible for the program. The program involved: (1) Four face-to-face workshops at ICFP from the 14th to 17th of November 2022; (2) mentoring meetings at ICFP; (3) a six-month post-conference online coaching program; and (4) post-conference learning webinars from December 2022 to May 2023. We used online surveys to assess the participants' reactions, learning, and behaviour changes to the workshops and the online coaching program. We present participants' self-reported progress towards achieving a scientific publication. Sixty-seven participants from 29 countries participated in the workshops, and 40 attended the post-conference program. Workshops were rated positively, though the in-conference mentoring program faced challenges, including low attendance. The post-conference program was highly rated, with most participants engaging well with coaching and the webinars. At the end of the six-month program, 31 (46%) participants reported some progress in manuscript writing, with five completed manuscripts submitted. Scientific writing is a complex skill, and whilst our program had several positive elements, our participants faced many challenges completing their manuscripts within six months. The post-conference coaching and webinar program was rated highly, emphasising the need for ongoing support. Future programs should address this and other difficulties we highlight.

This study aimed to assess the perceived impact of state and institutional policies on managing pregnancies of unknown location (PULs) at US Ryan residency programs. We conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey of US Ryan residency programs (n=113) from March to April 2024. We compared the perceived influence of institutional and state policies on PUL management among Ryan Programs in restrictive vs nonrestrictive abortion climates. Provision of diagnostic uterine aspiration in the workup of PUL was a secondary outcome. We compared proportion of responses between restrictive and nonrestrictive climates with Fisher exact tests. We obtained responses from 75 Ryan Programs in 32 states (66.4% response rate). 29 (38.7%) were from states with restrictive abortion policies. Eight programs (10.7%) changed PUL management after the Dobbs decision. Compared to programs in nonrestrictive states, programs in restrictive states were more likely to report that state policy inhibits their ability to care for patients with PUL (34.5% vs 2.17%, p<0.001), rarely or never offer diagnostic uterine aspiration (34.5% vs 8.7%, p=0.01), and identify institutional leadership as a barrier to offering diagnostic uterine aspirations (20.7% vs 2.2%, p=0.01). The most common institutional barriers to providing diagnostic uterine aspiration were staffing and faculty comfort/willingness, which did not differ by state abortion climate. State abortion policy and institutional policy may impact the options available to patients with PULs. Programs in all legislative climates should address institutional barriers to providing diagnostic uterine aspiration. Legislative advocacy in restrictive states is needed to ensure access to expedient PUL management.