Exploring provider preference and provision of abortion methods and stigma: Secondary analysis of a United Kingdom provider survey.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 DEMOGRAPHY Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-08 DOI:10.1111/psrh.12254
Katy Footman, Suzanna Bright, Jayne Kavanagh, Emma Parnham, Louise Bury, Lesley Hoggart
{"title":"Exploring provider preference and provision of abortion methods and stigma: Secondary analysis of a United Kingdom provider survey.","authors":"Katy Footman, Suzanna Bright, Jayne Kavanagh, Emma Parnham, Louise Bury, Lesley Hoggart","doi":"10.1111/psrh.12254","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Method choice is an important component of quality abortion care and qualitative research suggests that abortion stigma can influence provider preference and provision of abortion methods. This study is the first to explore the relationships between abortion providers' method preferences, their provision of medication or instrumentation abortion or both methods, and abortion stigma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted secondary analysis of a survey of United Kingdom (UK) abortion providers (N = 172) to describe and compare providers' self-reported method preferences and provision. We used multinomial logistic regression to assess the association between method preference and provider experiences of abortion stigma (measured using a revised Abortion Provider Stigma Scale (APSS)), adjusting for relevant provider and facility characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Almost half (52%) of providers reported that they only provided medication abortion care, while 5% only provided instrumentation abortion care and 43% provided both methods. Most (62%) preferred to provide both methods while 32% preferred to provide only medication abortion and 6% only instrumentation abortion. There was no significant difference in revised APSS scores by provider method preference or provision.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Most surveyed UK abortion providers prefer to offer both methods, but over half only provide medication abortion. This may reflect patients' preferences for medication abortion, and health system and legal constraints on instrumentation abortion. Addressing these systemic constraints on method provision could expand patient choice. Providers' method preference was not significantly associated with provider stigma but future research should consider the influence of structural stigma on method provision at the health system level.</p>","PeriodicalId":47632,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","volume":" ","pages":"50-59"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psrh.12254","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Method choice is an important component of quality abortion care and qualitative research suggests that abortion stigma can influence provider preference and provision of abortion methods. This study is the first to explore the relationships between abortion providers' method preferences, their provision of medication or instrumentation abortion or both methods, and abortion stigma.

Methods: We conducted secondary analysis of a survey of United Kingdom (UK) abortion providers (N = 172) to describe and compare providers' self-reported method preferences and provision. We used multinomial logistic regression to assess the association between method preference and provider experiences of abortion stigma (measured using a revised Abortion Provider Stigma Scale (APSS)), adjusting for relevant provider and facility characteristics.

Results: Almost half (52%) of providers reported that they only provided medication abortion care, while 5% only provided instrumentation abortion care and 43% provided both methods. Most (62%) preferred to provide both methods while 32% preferred to provide only medication abortion and 6% only instrumentation abortion. There was no significant difference in revised APSS scores by provider method preference or provision.

Discussion: Most surveyed UK abortion providers prefer to offer both methods, but over half only provide medication abortion. This may reflect patients' preferences for medication abortion, and health system and legal constraints on instrumentation abortion. Addressing these systemic constraints on method provision could expand patient choice. Providers' method preference was not significantly associated with provider stigma but future research should consider the influence of structural stigma on method provision at the health system level.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
探索提供者对堕胎方法的偏好和提供以及耻辱感:对英国提供者调查的二次分析。
导言:方法选择是优质人工流产护理的重要组成部分,定性研究表明,人工流产耻辱感会影响提供者对人工流产方法的偏好和提供。本研究首次探讨了人工流产提供者对人工流产方法的偏好、他们提供的药物或器械人工流产方法或同时提供这两种方法与人工流产污名之间的关系:我们对英国(UK)人工流产提供者(N = 172)的调查进行了二次分析,以描述和比较提供者自我报告的方法偏好和提供情况。我们使用多项式逻辑回归评估了方法偏好与提供者堕胎耻辱感经历(使用修订版堕胎提供者耻辱感量表(APSS)测量)之间的关联,并对相关提供者和设施特征进行了调整:结果:近一半(52%)的提供者称他们只提供药物流产护理,5%只提供器械流产护理,43%提供两种方法。大多数医疗服务提供者(62%)倾向于同时提供两种方法,32%的医疗服务提供者只提供药物流产,6%的医疗服务提供者只提供器械流产。根据提供者的方法偏好或提供情况,修订后的 APSS 分数没有明显差异:讨论:大多数接受调查的英国人工流产提供者倾向于提供两种方法,但超过半数只提供药物流产。这可能反映了患者对药物流产的偏好,以及医疗系统和法律对器械流产的限制。解决这些对提供人工流产方法的系统性限制可扩大患者的选择范围。提供者对人工流产方法的偏好与提供者的耻辱感并无显著关联,但未来的研究应考虑结构性耻辱感在医疗系统层面对提供人工流产方法的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.40%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health provides the latest peer-reviewed, policy-relevant research and analysis on sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States and other developed countries. For more than four decades, Perspectives has offered unique insights into how reproductive health issues relate to one another; how they are affected by policies and programs; and their implications for individuals and societies. Published four times a year, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health includes original research, special reports and commentaries on the latest developments in the field of sexual and reproductive health, as well as staff-written summaries of recent findings in the field.
期刊最新文献
Sexual choking/strangulation and its association with condom and contraceptive use: Findings from a survey of students at a university in the Midwestern United States. Understanding abortion legality and trimester of abortion care in Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky, three abortion‐restrictive states Abortion assistance fund staff and volunteers as patient navigators following an abortion ban in Texas. Abortion-related crowdfunding post-Dobbs. Medicaid's role in alleviating some of the financial burden of abortion: Findings from the 2021-2022 Abortion Patient Survey.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1