Provision of fertility services to women in same-sex relationships at Catholic and non-Catholic clinics in the United States.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 DEMOGRAPHY Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2022-09-01 Epub Date: 2022-09-07 DOI:10.1363/psrh.12206
Lara Elizabeth Stein, Kara N Goldman, Sarah Takimoto, Barbara Neshek, Maryam Guiahi
{"title":"Provision of fertility services to women in same-sex relationships at Catholic and non-Catholic clinics in the United States.","authors":"Lara Elizabeth Stein,&nbsp;Kara N Goldman,&nbsp;Sarah Takimoto,&nbsp;Barbara Neshek,&nbsp;Maryam Guiahi","doi":"10.1363/psrh.12206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study addressed deficient information on the provision of infertility care in obstetrics and gynecology clinics. We additionally evaluated the availability of these services based on clinic affiliations or stated sexual orientation.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>We performed a national cross-sectional \"mystery caller\" survey of 293 general obstetrics and gynecology clinics in 2017-2018. We matched clinics identified by web-based search engine in a 1:1 ratio by Catholic hospital affiliation, after determining number of clinics based on state-population densities. A standard call script included questions regarding provision of infertility services, ovulation induction methods, and information about the caller's sexual orientation. We performed descriptive frequencies and compared responses based on hospital affiliations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 293 clinics included, 49% were affiliated with Catholic and 17% with academic hospitals. The majority offered infertility care (85%, 248/293), and of these 97% (240/248) offered ovulation induction. Only 3% (6/240) reported they would not provide to women in same-sex relationships. Most clinics not offering infertility evaluations (43/45, 96%) cited it was outside of their scope of care and of these 33% (15/45) did not provide information for self-referral. Clinics affiliated with academic (aOR 0.23) or Catholic (aOR 0.34) hospitals were less likely to provide evaluations. Those with academic affiliation were more likely to provide information for self-referral (aOR 19.2).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Most general obstetrics and gynecology practices offered appointments for infertility evaluation and ovulation induction. Clinics rarely denied services to women reporting a same-sex partnership, regardless of hospital affiliation. These findings provide reassurance to same-sex couples seeking fertility care.</p>","PeriodicalId":47632,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","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/10.1363/psrh.12206","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This study addressed deficient information on the provision of infertility care in obstetrics and gynecology clinics. We additionally evaluated the availability of these services based on clinic affiliations or stated sexual orientation.

Methodology: We performed a national cross-sectional "mystery caller" survey of 293 general obstetrics and gynecology clinics in 2017-2018. We matched clinics identified by web-based search engine in a 1:1 ratio by Catholic hospital affiliation, after determining number of clinics based on state-population densities. A standard call script included questions regarding provision of infertility services, ovulation induction methods, and information about the caller's sexual orientation. We performed descriptive frequencies and compared responses based on hospital affiliations.

Results: Of the 293 clinics included, 49% were affiliated with Catholic and 17% with academic hospitals. The majority offered infertility care (85%, 248/293), and of these 97% (240/248) offered ovulation induction. Only 3% (6/240) reported they would not provide to women in same-sex relationships. Most clinics not offering infertility evaluations (43/45, 96%) cited it was outside of their scope of care and of these 33% (15/45) did not provide information for self-referral. Clinics affiliated with academic (aOR 0.23) or Catholic (aOR 0.34) hospitals were less likely to provide evaluations. Those with academic affiliation were more likely to provide information for self-referral (aOR 19.2).

Discussion: Most general obstetrics and gynecology practices offered appointments for infertility evaluation and ovulation induction. Clinics rarely denied services to women reporting a same-sex partnership, regardless of hospital affiliation. These findings provide reassurance to same-sex couples seeking fertility care.

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
在美国天主教和非天主教诊所为同性关系中的女性提供生育服务。
简介:本研究解决了在妇产科诊所提供不孕症护理的信息不足问题。我们还根据诊所的隶属关系或性取向来评估这些服务的可用性。方法:我们于2017-2018年对全国293家普通妇产科诊所进行了横断面“神秘来电者”调查。在根据州-人口密度确定诊所数量后,我们以1:1的比例匹配基于网络的搜索引擎确定的天主教医院所属的诊所。一份标准的电话脚本包括不孕不育服务的提供、促排卵方法以及来电者性取向的信息。我们进行了描述频率,并比较了基于医院隶属关系的反应。结果:纳入的293个诊所中,49%隶属于天主教医院,17%隶属于学术医院。大多数提供不孕护理(85%,248/293),其中97%(240/248)提供促排卵。只有3%(6/240)的人表示他们不会为同性关系中的女性提供服务。大多数不提供不孕症评估的诊所(43/45,96%)认为这超出了他们的护理范围,其中33%(15/45)没有提供自我转诊的信息。隶属于学术医院(aOR 0.23)或天主教医院(aOR 0.34)的诊所不太可能提供评估。有学术背景的学生更倾向于提供自我推荐信息(aOR 19.2)。讨论:大多数普通妇产科诊所提供不孕症评估和排卵诱导预约。诊所很少拒绝为报告同性伴侣关系的妇女提供服务,无论其隶属于哪个医院。这些发现为寻求生育护理的同性伴侣提供了保证。
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
Estimating the economic impact of restricting reproductive healthcare access in Ohio. "Trust Women": Characteristics of and learnings from patients of a Shield Law medication abortion practice in the United States. 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 Exploring adolescent-facing US clinicians' perceptions of their contraceptive counseling and use of shared decision-making: A qualitative 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