Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health最新文献

Context: Despite instituting a policy in 2004, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) continuously struggled to routinely provide safe abortion care (SAC). In 2016, the organization launched an initiative aimed at increasing availability of SAC in MSF projects and increasing understanding of abortion-related dynamics in humanitarian settings.

Methodology: From March 2017 to April 2018, MSF staff conducted support visits to 10 projects in a country in sub-Saharan Africa. Each visit followed a systematic approach with six key components and related tools that were later shared with teams worldwide. Data regarding women seeking abortion services and related outcomes were collected and analyzed retrospectively.

Results: From Q1 2017 through Q4 2019, SAC provision increased significantly in all 10 projects, rising from three to 759 safe abortions per quarter. Teams received 3831 patients seeking SAC and provided 3640 first and second trimester abortions, over 99% via medication methods. The overall complication rate was 4.29% and 0.3% for severe, life-threatening complications. No major security incidents were reported. MSF provision of SAC worldwide increased from 781 in 2016 (the year before this initiative began) to 21,546 in 2019.

Conclusion: Implementation of SAC in humanitarian settings-even those with significant legal restrictions-is possible and necessary. Both first and second trimester medication abortion can be safely and effectively provided through both home- and facility-based models of care. Programmatic data provide valuable insights into abortion-related dynamics which must shape operational decision-making. Addressing internal barriers and providing direct field support were key to stimulating organizational cultural change.

Context: Women, transgender men, and gender non-binary individuals facing unwanted pregnancy use online resources for abortion information. We sought to determine the informational and emotional needs that those seeking abortion information on Reddit expressed immediately following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs) decision in the United States. Furthermore, we aimed to understand how the Reddit community addressed these needs.

Methods: We collected posts on Reddit in the subreddit r/abortion that expressed informational or emotional needs related to the Dobbs decision created between June 24, 2022 and July 24, 2022. We identified posts using keywords including "roe," "rvw," and "trigger law" and then manually reviewed them to ensure relevance. We analyzed posts and their comments using qualitative descriptive analysis.

Results: One hundred and ten posts met inclusion criteria. Original posters expressed needs for legal and medical information. Posters also expressed need for logistical support, including help accessing medication abortion, traveling out of state, and financing abortion care, and emotional support in general and resulting from fear of parental disapproval and shame relating to abortion stigma. Although responders to these comments addressed these needs by offering general support, accurate information, and reliable resources, intersecting and emotional needs sometimes went unaddressed.

Conclusion: The Dobbs decision caused confusion and panic among abortion seekers requesting guidance on r/abortion, resulting in informational and emotional needs. While the r/abortion community actively addressed needs, inherent limitations of an online forum prevented some original posters from receiving the multifaceted support they needed.

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.

Purpose: Hysterectomy is a gynecological procedure sometimes performed as part of the gender-affirming process for transgender and gender-expansive patients assigned female at birth. Our goal was to compare surgical outcomes between patients undergoing gender-affirming hysterectomy and patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign menstrual disorders. We then explored the implications of gender-affirming hysterectomy for uterine transplantation.

Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2009 through 2018. We identified patients undergoing hysterectomy in the United States based on Current Procedural Terminology code. We used the International Classification of Diseases 9 or 10 codes to identify patients with benign menstrual disorders (non-gender-affirming group) and gender dysphoria (gender-affirming group). We compared patient characteristics and surgical complications.

Results: Of the 40,742 patients that met inclusion criteria, 526 (1.3%) patients were individuals with gender dysphoria. Compared to patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign menstrual disorders, gender-affirming patients were younger, were healthier, had a lower prevalence of diabetes, and were more likely to undergo surgery in the outpatient setting, with shorter time to discharge. Complication rates were similar between groups. Logistic regression controlling for the American Society of Anesthesiology classification determined the difference of return to the operating room was not statistically significant (OR 1.082; 95% CI, 0.56-2.10; p = 0.816).

Conclusion: Gender-affirming hysterectomy has a safety profile similar to hysterectomy performed for benign menstrual disorders. Researchers should further explore the possibility of uterus donation among these patients as they may be suitable candidates.

Context: Women, transgender men, and gender non-binary individuals who gave birth during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic experienced strict visitor restrictions that significantly disrupted their support networks. This study sought to examine women's perceptions and experiences of solitary support, particularly from male partners, during labor and delivery.

Methods: From April 2020 through August 2021, I conducted in-depth interviews with women who had given birth in the previous 12 months in the state of Ohio. I used a multi-modal recruitment strategy and conducted all interviews virtually. I analyzed transcripts to identify themes using inductive and deductive techniques.

Results: I interviewed 12 women who gave birth after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and all opted to have their male partner as their solitary support person. Most women reported putting pressure on their male partners to "step up" in the absence of other sources of support, such as doulas. Couples engaged in intensive communication and planning prior to the delivery, which contributed to increased feelings of emotional closeness. Participants reported mixed feelings about birthing with a solitary support person including having a sense of increased privacy and an ability to focus while also feeling afraid and isolated.

Conclusions: Women who gave birth in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and prior to the widespread availability of vaccines were particularly vulnerable to adverse perinatal outcomes, including stillbirth and postpartum depression. Understanding the impact of solitary support from male partners can help inform future person-centered and equitable maternity care visitor policies.

Context: The Person-Centered Contraceptive Care measure (PCCC) evaluates patient experience of contraceptive counseling, a construct not represented within United States surveillance metrics of contraceptive care. We explore use of PCCC in a national probability sample and examine predictors of person-centered contraceptive care.

Methods: Among 2228 women from the 2017-2019 National Survey of Family Growth who reported receiving contraceptive care in the last year, we conducted univariate and multivariable linear regression to identify associations between individual characteristics and PCCC scores.

Results: PCCC scores were high ( $\overline{x}$ : 17.84, CI: 17.59-18.08 on a 4-20 scale), yet varied across characteristics. In adjusted analyses, Hispanic identity with Spanish language primacy and non-Hispanic other or multiple racial identities were significantly associated with lower average PCCC scores compared to those of non-Hispanic white identity (B = -1.232 [-1.970, -0.493]; B = -0.792 [-1.411, -0.173]). Gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity was associated with lower average PCCC scores compared to heterosexual (B = -0.673 [-1.243, -0.103]). PCCC scores had a positive association with incomes of 150%-299% and ≥300% of the federal poverty level compared to those of income <150% (150%-299%: B = 0.669 [0.198, 1.141]; ≥300%: B = 0.892 [0.412, 1.372]). Cannabis use in the past year was associated with lower PCCC scores (B = -0.542 [-0.971, -0.113]).

Conclusions: The PCCC can capture differential experiences of contraceptive care to monitor patient experience and to motivate and track care quality over time. Differences in reported quality of care have implications for informing national priorities for contraceptive care improvements.

Context: Adolescents need support to make informed decisions about contraception. Few clinical questionnaires exist to help adolescents and their healthcare providers align contraception decisions with patient needs and preferences.

Methods: Our mixed-methods study involved a convenience sample of English-speaking, female patients aged 13-19 seeking contraception services at an adolescent reproductive health clinic in Colorado, USA. Qualitative interviews informed development of clinical questionnaire items. The questionnaire elicited demographic characteristics, pregnancy and contraception use history, preferred contraception attributes, peer and family involvement, healthcare information and support needs, motivations for contraceptive use, and barriers to contraceptive services. We identified key decision-making factors and reduced the number of questionnaire items through principal components analysis. Using multivariable analyses, we examined the correlation between questionnaire responses and current contraceptive method.

Results: Twenty individuals participated in interviews and 373 individuals completed the preliminary questionnaire with 63 candidate items. We identified five contraceptive decision-making factors: side-effect avoidance (eight items, Cronbach's alpha = 0.84), preferred method attributes (six items, Cronbach's alpha = 0.67), parental involvement (three items, Cronbach's alpha = 0.67), life goals prior to parenting (four items, Cronbach's alpha = 0.88), and access to a contraceptive provider (two items, Cronbach's alpha = 0.92) and nine stand-alone items. In multivariable analyses, we found that questionnaire responses for decision-making factors varied among participants using different contraceptive methods.

Conclusions: Multiple priorities may influence adolescent contraceptive decisions. This clinical questionnaire can elicit these priorities before or during a healthcare encounter. Future studies should assess generalizability of the questionnaire and examine impact on method choice, continuation, satisfaction, and reproductive health outcomes.

Context: With abortion no longer deemed a constitutional right in the United States (US), the importance of effective contraceptive methods cannot be overstated. Both male sterilization (vasectomy) and female sterilization (tubal ligation) have the lowest failure rates of available means of contraception. Despite the less invasive and reversible nature of vasectomy compared to tubal ligation procedures and even though some healthcare professionals dissuade certain women, especially those who are white and/or economically advantaged, from undergoing a sterilization procedure, female sterilization is approximately three times more prevalent than male sterilization in the US.

Purpose: We suggest that the discrepancy in sterilization rates is attributable to the burdens of pregnancy and birth experienced by women, beliefs that pregnancy prevention is a woman's responsibility, a dearth of sex education that results in lack of knowledge and poor understanding of contraception, perceptions of masculinity in which contraception is viewed as feminizing, and the increase in long-term singlehood that shapes the desire of individuals to avoid unwanted pregnancy that may result in single parenting.

Implications: Recent reports suggest that court rulings restricting abortion access and looming threats to contraceptive legality and accessibility may be prompting a national increase in male sterilization.

Context: Abortion is common in the United States (US), although access is becoming more difficult for some. In addition to restrictive policies that ban most abortion, limit the number of providers and increase costs, barriers to access also include less supportive cultural climates and stigma related to abortion. Prior to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health decision of the United States Supreme Court, research suggested that people generally believed it was easy to access abortion, but this research did not examine the underlying factors that drive these perceptions.

Methods: In 2019, using data from closed and open-ended survey questions, we examined differences in people's assessment of abortion access within the state they reside and factors that influence those perceptions. We recruited English- and Spanish-speaking US adults (N = 2599) from Qualtrics' national panel using quota-based sampling to participate in a web-based survey. We used multinomial logistic regression to examine predictors of access perceptions across demographic characteristics and thematic analysis to analyze open-ended responses.

Results: Fifty-three percent of participants believed abortion was easy to access in their state. Spanish speakers and participants from legislatively "hostile" states were more likely to perceive access as difficult. Legality-related knowledge and pro-life identity were associated with perceiving abortion access as easy.

Conclusions: Prior to Dobbs, participants' interpretation of the ease or difficulty of accessing abortion were subjective. Misconceptions about state abortion laws and the prevalence of providers were common, suggesting a need for more education about abortion laws, policies, and access.