Bio

Clinical Focus


  • Family Medicine
  • Community Medicine
  • Primary Care
  • Vulnerable Populations
  • maternal child health
  • population health

Academic Appointments


Professional Education


  • MS, Stanford University, Department of Health Research & Policy, Health Services Research (2014)
  • Fellowship, Stanford CHP/PCOR and VA Palo Alto HSR&D, Health Services Research (2014)
  • Board Certification: Family Medicine, American Board of Family Medicine (2009)
  • Residency:Oregon Health and Science UniversityOR
  • Medical Education:Harvard Medical School (2006) MA

Community and International Work


  • ImPACT: Intensive Management Patient Alligned Care Team, VA Palo Alto

    Topic

    Case Management of high cost, high need VA Patients

    Partnering Organization(s)

    VA Palo Alto

    Populations Served

    Medically Complex Veterans

    Location

    Bay Area

    Ongoing Project

    Yes

    Opportunities for Student Involvement

    No

  • Staff at Ravenswood Family Health Clinc, Belle Haven Clinic

    Topic

    Family Medicine

    Populations Served

    East Palo Alto / East Menlo par

    Location

    Bay Area

    Ongoing Project

    Yes

    Opportunities for Student Involvement

    Yes

Teaching

Graduate and Fellowship Programs


Publications

Journal Articles


  • Adjunct mifepristone for cervical preparation prior to dilation and evacuation: a randomized trial CONTRACEPTION Shaw, K. A., Shaw, J. G., Hugin, M., Velasquez, G., Hopkins, F. W., Blumenthal, P. D. 2015; 91 (4): 313-319

    Abstract

    The objective was to investigate mifepristone as a potential adjunct to cervical preparation for surgical abortion after 19weeks of gestation, with the aim of improving procedure access, convenience and comfort.This is a site-stratified, block-randomized, noninferiority trial of 50 women undergoing surgical abortion between 19 and 23 6/7weeks of gestation randomized to receive either one set of osmotic dilators plus mifepristone the day prior to procedure (mifepristone group) or two sets of osmotic dilators (placed 18-24 h apart) in the 2 days prior to procedure (control group). All subjects received preprocedure misoprostol. Primary outcome was procedure time. Secondary outcomes included preoperative cervical dilation, ease of procedure, and side effects and pain experienced by subjects.Mean gestational age was similar between groups (20weeks); more nulliparous subjects were randomized to the mifepristone group (46% vs. 12%, p=.009). Mean procedure times were similar: mifepristone group 11:52 (SD 5:29) vs. control group 10:56 (SD 5:08); difference in means -56s, with confidence interval (95% CI -4:09 to +2:16) not exceeding the 5-min difference we a priori defined as clinically significant. Preprocedure cervical dilation did not differ and was >3cm for the majority of subjects in both groups. There was no difference (p=.6) in ease of procedure reported by providers. Preoperative (postmisoprostol) pain and postoperative pain levels were greater with mifepristone (p = 0.02 and p= 0.04 respectively). Overall subject experience was not different (p=0.80), with most reporting a "better than expected" experience.Mifepristone with one set of osmotic dilators and misoprostol did not result in longer procedure times or less cervical dilation than serial (two sets) of osmotic dilators and misoprostol, and has the potential to improve access to second trimester abortion without compromising safety.Use of mifepristone for cervical preparation before surgical abortion after 19weeks allows for fewer visits and fewer osmotic dilators without compromising cervical dilation or increasing procedure time.

    View details for DOI 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.11.014

    View details for Web of Science ID 000351190700009

    View details for PubMedID 25499589

  • In reply. Obstetrics and gynecology Shaw, J. G., Asch, S. M., Frayne, S. M., Phibbs, C. S., Kimerling, R., Shaw, K. A. 2015; 125 (4): 989-?

    View details for DOI 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000783

    View details for PubMedID 25798980

  • Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Risk of Spontaneous Preterm Birth OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY Shaw, J. G., Asch, S. M., Kimerling, R., Frayne, S. M., Shaw, K. A., Phibbs, C. S. 2014; 124 (6): 1111-1119
  • Partnered Research in Healthcare Delivery Redesign for High-Need, High-Cost Patients: Development and Feasibility of an Intensive Management Patient-Aligned Care Team (ImPACT) JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE Zulman, D. M., Ezeji-Okoye, S. C., Shaw, J. G., Hummel, D. L., Holloway, K. S., Smither, S. F., Breland, J. Y., Chardos, J. F., Kirsh, S., Kahn, J. S., Asch, S. M. 2014; 29: S861-S869
  • Gestational Diabetes and Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy Among Women Veterans Deployed in Service of Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq JOURNAL OF WOMENS HEALTH Katon, J., Mattocks, K., Zephyrin, L., Reiber, G., Yano, E. M., Callegari, L., Schwarz, E. B., Goulet, J., Shaw, J., Brandt, C., Haskell, S. 2014; 23 (10): 792-800
  • To Sling or Not To Sling at Time of Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis JOURNAL OF UROLOGY Richardson, M. L., Elliott, C. S., Shaw, J. G., Comiter, C. V., Chen, B., Sokol, E. R. 2013; 190 (4): 1306-1312

    Abstract

    OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of three strategies for use of a mid-urethral sling (MUS) to prevent occult stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in those undergoing abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC). METHODS: Using decision-analysis modeling, we compared cost-effectiveness over a 1 year post-operative time period of three treatment approaches: 1) ASC alone with deferred option for MUS; 2) ASC with universal concomitant MUS; and 3) preoperative urodynamic study (UDS) for selective MUS. Using published data, we modeled probabilities of SUI after ASC with or without MUS, the predictive value of UDS to detect occult SUI, and the likelihood of complications after MUS. Costs were derived from Medicare 2010 reimbursement rates. The main outcome modeled was incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. In addition to base-case analysis, one-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In our model, universally performing MUS at the time of ASC was the most cost-effective approach, with an incremental cost per QALY gained of $2867 when compared to performing ASC alone. Preoperative UDS was more costly and less effective than universally performing intraoperative MUS. The cost-effectiveness of ASC + MUS was robust to sensitivity analysis, with a cost-effectiveness ratio consistently below $20,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Universal concomitant MUS is the most cost-effective prophylaxis strategy for occult SUI in women undergoing ASC. The use of pre-operative UDS to guide MUS placement at the time of ASC is not cost-effective.

    View details for DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2013.03.046

    View details for Web of Science ID 000325091700058

    View details for PubMedID 23524201

  • Mifepristone-Misoprostol Dosing Interval and Effect on Induction Abortion Times A Systematic Review OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY Shaw, K. A., Topp, N. J., Shaw, J. G., Blumenthal, P. D. 2013; 121 (6): 1335-1347

Footer Links:

Stanford Medicine Resources: