Reproductive Health Care Inequities by Disability Status: Experiences With Providers and Barriers to Care.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING Research in Nursing & Health Pub Date : 2025-02-22 DOI:10.1002/nur.22455
Margaret Brace, Linda Copel, Amy McKeever, Suzanne C Smeltzer
{"title":"Reproductive Health Care Inequities by Disability Status: Experiences With Providers and Barriers to Care.","authors":"Margaret Brace, Linda Copel, Amy McKeever, Suzanne C Smeltzer","doi":"10.1002/nur.22455","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The literature has documented that many women with disability (WWD) report barriers to obtaining reproductive health care as well as poor experiences with providers when care is received. This project sought to compare barriers and experiences in reproductive health care for WWD to those of women without disability in the United States. Using representative data from the National Survey of Family Growth (2017-2019), we present weighted estimates of poor or fair experiences with providers by disability status, as well as weighted estimates of the proportion of women reporting types of barriers to services by disability status, among individuals identifying as women between the ages of 15 and 49. We then used weighted logistic regressions to compare barriers and experiences with providers by disability status. After controlling for potential confounders, women with any disability had 2.6 times higher odds as women without disability to rate their providers' respect for them as \"poor\" or \"fair\" (95% CI: 1.1-6.2). WWD did not significantly differ from women without disability in whether they reported more than one type of barrier (AOR = 1.3, 95% CI: 0.8-2.1), yet WWD had higher odds of reporting financial barriers compared to women without disability (AOR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.02-2.2). While access to reproductive health care and experience with providers needs to be improved for all, these findings suggest that targeted efforts are needed to eliminate inequities for WWD in the reproductive health care system.</p>","PeriodicalId":54492,"journal":{"name":"Research in Nursing & Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Nursing & Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22455","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The literature has documented that many women with disability (WWD) report barriers to obtaining reproductive health care as well as poor experiences with providers when care is received. This project sought to compare barriers and experiences in reproductive health care for WWD to those of women without disability in the United States. Using representative data from the National Survey of Family Growth (2017-2019), we present weighted estimates of poor or fair experiences with providers by disability status, as well as weighted estimates of the proportion of women reporting types of barriers to services by disability status, among individuals identifying as women between the ages of 15 and 49. We then used weighted logistic regressions to compare barriers and experiences with providers by disability status. After controlling for potential confounders, women with any disability had 2.6 times higher odds as women without disability to rate their providers' respect for them as "poor" or "fair" (95% CI: 1.1-6.2). WWD did not significantly differ from women without disability in whether they reported more than one type of barrier (AOR = 1.3, 95% CI: 0.8-2.1), yet WWD had higher odds of reporting financial barriers compared to women without disability (AOR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.02-2.2). While access to reproductive health care and experience with providers needs to be improved for all, these findings suggest that targeted efforts are needed to eliminate inequities for WWD in the reproductive health care system.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Research in Nursing & Health ( RINAH ) is a peer-reviewed general research journal devoted to publication of a wide range of research that will inform the practice of nursing and other health disciplines. The editors invite reports of research describing problems and testing interventions related to health phenomena, health care and self-care, clinical organization and administration; and the testing of research findings in practice. Research protocols are considered if funded in a peer-reviewed process by an agency external to the authors’ home institution and if the work is in progress. Papers on research methods and techniques are appropriate if they go beyond what is already generally available in the literature and include description of successful use of the method. Theory papers are accepted if each proposition is supported by research evidence. Systematic reviews of the literature are reviewed if PRISMA guidelines are followed. Letters to the editor commenting on published articles are welcome.
期刊最新文献
Reproductive Health Care Inequities by Disability Status: Experiences With Providers and Barriers to Care. Cross-Cultural Adaption and Psychometric Evaluation of Chinese Version of the Caregiver Contribution to Self-Care of Heart Failure Index. Microbial Colonization and Associated Factors in Indwelling Urinary Catheters: A Cross-Sectional Study. Psychometric Testing of the Mutuality Scale in Patients and Caregiver Dyads After the Onset of Coronary Heart Disease. Prioritization Patterns of Nurses in the Management of a Patient With Delirium: Results of a Q-Methodology Study.
×
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