Affordable but Inaccessible? Contraception Deserts in the US States.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law Pub Date : 2021-04-01 DOI:10.1215/03616878-8802186
Rebecca J Kreitzer, Candis Watts Smith, Kellen A Kane, Tracee M Saunders
{"title":"Affordable but Inaccessible? Contraception Deserts in the US States.","authors":"Rebecca J Kreitzer,&nbsp;Candis Watts Smith,&nbsp;Kellen A Kane,&nbsp;Tracee M Saunders","doi":"10.1215/03616878-8802186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>This article focuses on whether, and the extent to which, the resources made available by Title X-the only federal policy aimed specifically at reproductive health care-are equitably accessible. Here, equitable means that barriers to accessing services are lowest for those people who need them most.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors use geographic information systems (GIS) and statistical/spatial analysis (specifically the integrated two-step floating catchment area [I2SFCA] method) to study the spatial and nonspatial accessibility of Title X clinics in 2018.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The authors find that contraception deserts vary across the states, with between 17% and 53% of the state population living in a desert. Furthermore, they find that low-income people and people of color are more likely to live in certain types of contraception deserts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The analyses reveal not only a wide range of sizes and shapes of contraception deserts across the US states but also a range of severity of inequity.</p>","PeriodicalId":54812,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","volume":"46 2","pages":"277-304"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-8802186","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

Context: This article focuses on whether, and the extent to which, the resources made available by Title X-the only federal policy aimed specifically at reproductive health care-are equitably accessible. Here, equitable means that barriers to accessing services are lowest for those people who need them most.

Methods: The authors use geographic information systems (GIS) and statistical/spatial analysis (specifically the integrated two-step floating catchment area [I2SFCA] method) to study the spatial and nonspatial accessibility of Title X clinics in 2018.

Findings: The authors find that contraception deserts vary across the states, with between 17% and 53% of the state population living in a desert. Furthermore, they find that low-income people and people of color are more likely to live in certain types of contraception deserts.

Conclusions: The analyses reveal not only a wide range of sizes and shapes of contraception deserts across the US states but also a range of severity of inequity.

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
负担得起却难以接近?美国的避孕沙漠。
背景:这篇文章关注的是标题x——唯一专门针对生殖健康保健的联邦政策——提供的资源是否以及在多大程度上是公平可及的。在这里,公平意味着最需要服务的人获得服务的障碍最低。方法:利用地理信息系统(GIS)和统计/空间分析方法(具体采用两步综合浮动集水区[I2SFCA]方法)对2018年《Title X》诊所的空间可达性和非空间可达性进行研究。研究结果:作者发现,避孕沙漠在各州各不相同,17%到53%的州人口生活在沙漠中。此外,他们发现低收入人群和有色人种更有可能生活在某些类型的避孕沙漠中。结论:分析不仅揭示了美国各州避孕沙漠的大小和形状的广泛范围,而且还揭示了不平等的严重程度。
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
7.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
46
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: A leading journal in its field, and the primary source of communication across the many disciplines it serves, the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law focuses on the initiation, formulation, and implementation of health policy and analyzes the relations between government and health—past, present, and future.
期刊最新文献
"We Want to Put Them in Trauma": Understanding the Trump Administration's Attack on Government Health Agency Regulatory Authority. The World Health Organization and the Shifting US and Global Political Orders. Public Health Under Siege. Never Waste a Crisis: The Past, Present, and Future of FDA Reform. Public Health Under Attack: Continuity, Discontinuity, and History.
×
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:604180095
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