Bio

India Rogers-Shepp is originally from New York City. She graduated from Princeton University with her BA in molecular biology in 2018 and a certificate in Dance. The following year she graduate from Brown University with a Master's in Science in Medical Sciences in 2019. She entered Stanford Medical School in 2020. During her time here, she has pursued her passions for women's health, queer health, equity for the unhoused, and environmental justice. India's future career goal is to become an OB/GYN who centers the reproductive health of the unhoused and those made most vulnerable by climate change through her clinical practice and research.

Honors & Awards

  • Youth Health Activist Award, SF Bay Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility (2022)
  • Nominee, MD Program Teaching Award (2021-22)
  • Best Project and Oral Presentation by Premedical Students, RIAFP Conference (2019)
  • Excellence in Anatomy Award, Gateways to Medicine, Health Care, and Research, Brown University (2019)
  • Outstanding Work by a Senior Award in Dance, Lewis Center for the Arts, Princeton University (2018)
  • Thesis Award in Dance, Program in Dance, Princeton University (2018)
  • Junior Award in Dance, Program in Dance, Princeton University (2017)
  • Peter B. Lewis Summer Fund Recipient,, Princeton University (2015)

Professional Affiliations and Activities

  • Next Generation Climate and Health Ambassador, Physicians for Social Responsibility (2024 - 2024)
  • Member, Gold Humanism Honor Society (2023 - Present)
  • Student Member, Stanford Climate Health and Equity Task Force (2021 - 2022)

Education & Certifications

  • MSc, Brown University, Medical Sciences (2019)
  • BA, Princeton University, Molecular Biology (2018)

Contact

  • Academic
    ibr86@stanford.edu
    University - Student Department: School of Medicine Position: Graduate, Medicine

Additional Info

Links

Current Clinical Interests

  • OBGYN
  • Reproductive Health
  • Healthcare for the Unhoused

All Publications

  • Understanding patient experiences during gynaecological procedures: a qualitative exploratory study. BMJ sexual & reproductive health Gopisetty, D. D., Rogers-Shepp, I., Padron, E., Shankar, M., Shaw, K. A. 2025

    Abstract

    Pain with gynaecological clinic-based procedures is common and undertreated. Prior research has focused on interventions for reducing pain and anxiety with analgesics, yet there remain gaps in understanding the myriad of facilitators and barriers to a person's positive experience. We aimed to start to address these gaps by exploring factors that influence a person's experience during gynaecological procedures beyond quantitative measures of pain.A qualitative thematic analysis approach was used for this exploratory study. Through convenience sampling, we recruited 15 participants with gynaecological procedural experience with intrauterine device (IUD) insertions, surgical abortions, colposcopies and/or endometrial biopsies. We conducted in-depth, semi-structured 1:1 interviews that explored participants' experience of the procedure. We then used a mixed inductive and deductive approach for development of a codebook and thematic analysis based on the Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity (PCFRHE).Four themes fundamental to understanding how patients process procedural experiences were identified: (1) Balancing preparation and anxiety, (2) Variable rapport with clinicians, (3) Self-advocacy and autonomy and (4) Clinician responsiveness to pain.Person-centred care in an inclusive, trauma-responsive environment is essential for improving gynaecological procedural experience. Ensuring patient access to pre- and post-visit information and offering multiple options to increase comfort are tangible actions clinicians can take to improve patient experience. This study underscores the importance of person-centred care in gynaecological procedures, emphasising better preprocedural education and support.

    View details for DOI 10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202588

    View details for PubMedID 39939154

  • Exercise interventions for advanced cancer palliative care patients: A systematic literature review and descriptive evidence synthesis of randomized controlled trials. Palliative medicine Rogers-Shepp, I., Bhattacharya, S., Mennillo, H. A., Kumar, R., Hsieh, B., Anandarajah, G. 2023; 37 (5): 677-691

    Abstract

    Exercise is often recommended for cancer patients. However, for advanced cancer palliative care patients, it is unclear whether exercise, as a lifestyle intervention, is beneficial for palliative outcomes.To examine randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of lifestyle exercise interventions on palliative outcomes in patients with advanced stage cancer.Systematic review and descriptive evidence synthesis.Pubmed/Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsychInfo, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to 2022. Two reviewers identified articles and removed duplicates. Next two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and then assessed full-texts articles for eligibility. Finally, all six reviewers examined full-text articles for eligibility and conducted the evidence synthesis.Eight randomized controlled trials were included. Studies were heterogeneous making direct comparisons challenging, but were grouped along three categories: aerobic, resistance, or resistance-aerobic exercises. One of three aerobic studies had positive quality-of-life outcomes. Fatigue improved in one aerobic and one combination resistance-aerobic study. Most resistance-aerobic studies and one aerobic study showed improved physical function. All resistance studies showed improvement in at least one outcome. Across all studies, ill health was the most common reason for participant dropout. The most commonly used assessment tools were: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: Fatigue, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-life Questionnaire Core 30, and accelerometer.Current randomized controlled trials regarding effects of exercise interventions on palliative outcomes for advanced cancer patients show great variability. While studies show promise, no generalizable conclusions can be made. Further research is needed.

    View details for DOI 10.1177/02692163231162888

    View details for PubMedID 37029686

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5271-1283