Bayer Women's Health Medical Affairs Department is interested in receiving and reviewing grant applications to support appropriate programs which cover the following areas of interest:

Therapeutic Areas/Disease States:

Long-Acting Reversible Contraception (LARC)

Intended Audience: Healthcare Professionals including OB/GYNs, Advance Practice Providers specializing in Women's Health (NPs, PAs, APRNs, CNMs, and RNs); Primary Care Physicians including Family Medicine and Internal Medicine; Pharmacist

Bayer TA Rationale for Educational Support:

• Management of IUD placement pain and anxiety
• Review of practical strategies and algorithm** for management of IUD insertion pain and/or anxiety

Preferred Format:

• Enduring
• Downloadable slides
• Incorporation of social media outreach (YouTube, Facebook, Spotify, Instagram, LinkedIn, X)
• Podcast
• Live Virtual

Proposal Requirements:

The proposal must be compliant with standards and guidelines for commercial support (e.g., ACCME).

The proposal should include:

• Needs assessment
• Educational design and rationale for selection (where applicable)
• Learning objectives
• Proposed faculty
• Participant recruitment plan (where applicable)
• Outcomes strategy/plan
• Detailed budget (please use the template available on the website)

Provider Justification:

Copy of most recent accreditation letter and status

Process:

Applications/proposals which are submitted and determined to be complete are reviewed monthly. Allow a minimum of 45 days from submission for response.

Acceptance of a Bayer educational grant indicates that you will:

• Reconcile grant funding within 60 days of completion of the educational program
• Permit a Bayer Medical Affairs representative to audit live programs
• Share activity data and outcomes metrics within 30 days of their availability

References

1. Hubacher D, Finer LB, Espey E. Renewed Interest in intrauterine contraception in the United States: evidence and explanation. Contraception 2011;83:291-294.
2. Trussel J. Contraception Failure in the United States. Contraception 2004; 70:89-96
3. Xu X, Macaluso M, Ouyang L, Kulczycki A, Grosse SD. Revival of the intrauterine device: increased insertions among US women with employer-sponsored insurance, 2002-2008. Contraception 2012; 85:155-59.
4. Data on file.
5. Rubin SE, Fletcher J, Stein T, Segall-Gutierrez P, Gold M. Determinants of intrauterine contraception provision among US family physicians: a national survey of knowledge, attitudes and practice. Contraception 2011; 83:472-78.
6. Harper CC, Blum M, Thiel de Bocanegra T, Darney PD, Speidel JJ, Policar M, Drey EA. Challenges in Translating Evidence to Practice. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 1359-69.
7. Madden T, Allsworth JE, Hladky J, Secura GM, Peipert JF. Intrauterine contraception in Saint Louis: a survey of obstetrician and gynecologists’ knowledge and attitudes. Contraception 2010; 81:112-16.
8. Committee on Gynecologic Practice. Increasing use of contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices to reduce unintended pregnancy. Long Acting Reversible Contraception Workshop- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee Opinion; Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126:e44-8.
9. Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology. Long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletin; Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118:184-94.
10. Bayer, L et al., Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2025 Feb 3:S0002-9378(25)00072-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2025.01.039. Online ahead of print