Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health最新文献

Background: Medicaid is the most common type of health insurance held by abortion patients, but the Hyde amendment prohibits the use of Medicaid to pay for this care. Seventeen states allow state Medicaid funds to cover abortion.

Methods: We used data from a national sample of 6698 people accessing abortions at 56 facilities across the United States between June 2021 and July 2022. We compare patient characteristics and issues related to payment for the abortion across patients residing in states where state Medicaid funds covered abortion (Medicaid states) and those where it did not (Hyde states). We also examine which abortion patient populations were most likely to use Medicaid in states where it covers abortion care.

Results: In Medicaid states, 62% of respondents used this method to pay for care while a majority of individuals in Hyde states, 82%, paid out of pocket. Some 71% of respondents in Medicaid states paid USD0 and this was substantially lower, 10%, in Hyde states. In Hyde states, two-thirds of respondents had to raise money for the abortion (e.g., by delaying bills) compared to 28% in Medicaid states. Within Medicaid states, groups most likely to rely on this method of payment included respondents who identified as Black (70%) or Latinx (66%), those in the lowest income group (78%) and those having second-trimester abortions (75%).

Discussion: When state Medicaid funds cover abortion, it substantially reduces the financial burden of care. Moreover, it may increase access for groups historically marginalized within the health care system.

Previous research on abortion-related crowdfunding campaigns found that they are impacted by stigma around abortion and rarely successful. This paper analyzes crowdfunding activity in the US following a leak of the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs. V. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a time period that saw increased financial support of abortion access funds. Crowdfunding campaigns that included "abort" or "abortion" and were created between May 2 and November 8, 2022 were recorded from the GoFundMe and GiveSendGo crowdfunding platforms. These campaigns were reviewed for whether they were US based and sought funding where abortion was used as a justification for support. Included campaigns were assigned a campaign recipient type: (1) Organizations providing abortion access; (2) Organizations seeking legal protection for abortion; (3) Individuals seeking abortion access; (4) Organizations seeking to reduce abortion access; and (5) Individuals with needs resulting from choosing not to access abortion. The authors also identified four types of rationale for supporting these campaigns. Following a leak of the Dobbs decision, 398 abortion-related crowdfunding campaigns in the US raised over $3.8 million from over 50,000 donations. Campaigns supporting abortion access organizations raised higher median amounts than organizations seeking to reduce abortion access. Individuals seeking abortion access raised higher median amounts than individuals who chose not to terminate a pregnancy. In a reversal from pre-Dobbs crowdfunding, abortion access campaigns tended to outperform other abortion-related campaigns. It is not clear how long-lived this change in support will be and campaigners remain vulnerable to changes in platforms' content moderation policies.

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: 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.

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: Despite substantial critiques of retrospective measures of fertility intentions, researchers widely use the metrics of unwanted and mistimed pregnancies as tools for monitoring patterns and trends in reproductive health. However, in focusing exclusively on the timing and numeric elements of fertility these constructs ignore partner-specific desires, which may lead to considerable measurement error and threaten their validity.

Methodology: We use data on births in the last 5 years from the 2017-2019 United States National Survey of Family Growth to compare responses to the standard retrospective measure of fertility intentions with responses to a partner-specific question that asks respondents about whether they had ever desired a child with that partner.

Results: We find that women's responses to questions on retrospective fertility desires with and without reference to a particular partner vary in ways that suggest that women and researchers interpret these questions differently.

Discussion: Despite a long history in fertility research, the standard approach to measuring mistimed and unwanted fertility is both conceptually and operationally flawed. In the context of complicated sexual and reproductive lives that do not start and end with a single partner, researchers should reevaluate the usefulness of the constructs of mistimed and unwanted fertility. We conclude by offering recommendations for analysts and survey designers as well as by calling for a move away from the terms entirely to focus instead on the pregnancies that women themselves view as most problematic.