Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health最新文献

Introduction: During early stages of COVID-19 in the United States, government representatives in Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia restricted or threatened to restrict abortion care under elective surgery bans. We examined how abortion utilization changed in these states.

Methodology: We examined COVID-19 abortion-related state policies implemented in March and April 2020 using publicly available sources. We analyzed data on abortions by method and gestation and experiences of facility staff, using a survey of 14 facilities. We assessed abortions that took place in February-June 2020 and February-June 2021.

Results: In February-June 2020 the monthly average abortion count was 1916; 863 (45%) were medication abortions and 229 (12%) were ≥14 weeks gestation. Of 1959 abortions performed across all three states in April 2020, 1319 (67%) were medication abortions and 231 (12%) were ≥14 weeks gestation. The shift toward medication abortion that took place in April 2020 was not observed in April 2021. Although the total abortion count in the three-state region remained steady, West Virginia had the greatest decline in total abortions, Ohio experienced a shift from instrumentation to medication abortions, and Kentucky saw little change. Staff reported increased stress from concerns over health and safety and increased scrutiny by the state and anti-abortion protesters.

Discussion: Although abortion provision continued in this region, policy changes restricting abortion in Ohio and West Virginia resulted in a decrease in first trimester instrumentation abortions, an overall shift toward medication abortion care, and an increase in stress among facility staff during the early phase of COVID-19.

Objective: To understand how the punitive, rights-limiting, and racially stratified environment of incarceration in the United States (US) shapes the abortion desires, access, and pregnancy experiences of pregnant women, transgender men, and gender non-binary individuals.

Methods: From May 2018-November 2020, we conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with pregnant women in prisons and jails in an abortion supportive and an abortion restrictive state. Interviews explored whether participants considered abortion for this pregnancy; attempted to obtain an abortion in custody; whether and how incarceration affected their thoughts about pregnancy, birth, parenting, and abortion; and options counseling and prenatal care experiences, or lack thereof, in custody.

Results: The conditions of incarceration deeply shaped our 39 participants' abortion and pregnancy decisions, with some experiencing pregnancy continuation as punishment. Four themes emerged: (1) medical providers' overt obstruction of desired abortions; (2) participants assuming that incarcerated women had no right to abortion; (3) carceral bureaucracy constraining abortion access; and (4) carceral conditions made women wish they had aborted. Themes were similar in supportive and restrictive states.

Conclusions: Incarceration shaped participants' thoughts about pregnancy and their abilities to access abortion, consider whether abortion was an attainable option, and make pregnancy-related decisions. These subtle carceral control aspects presented more frequent barriers to abortion than overt logistical ones. The carceral environment played a more significant role than the state's overall abortion climate in shaping abortion experiences. Incarceration constrains and devalues reproductive wellbeing in punitive ways that are a microcosm of broader forces of reproductive control in US society.

Context: Early pregnancy loss (EPL) affects 1 million patients in the United States (US) annually, but integration of mifepristone into EPL care may be complicated by regulatory barriers, practice-related factors, and abortion stigma.

Methods: We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews among obstetrician-gynecologists in independent practice in Massachusetts, US on mifepristone use for EPL. We recruited participants via professional networks and purposively sampled for mifepristone use, practice type, time in practice, and geographic location within Massachusetts until we reached thematic saturation. We analyzed interviews using inductive and deductive coding under a thematic analysis framework to identify facilitators of and barriers to mifepristone use.

Results: We interviewed 19 obstetrician-gynecologists; 12 had used mifepristone for EPL and 7 had not. Participants were in private practice (n = 12), academic practice (n = 6), or worked at a federally qualified health center (n = 1). Seven had fellowship training, including four in complex family planning. The most common facilitators of mifepristone use for EPL were access to the expertise or protocols of local-regional experts, leadership from a "champion," prior experience with abortion care, and hospital capacity constraints during the COVID-19 pandemic. The most common barriers were related to the Mifepristone Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Program imposed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Additionally, mifepristone's affiliation with abortion was a barrier to its use in EPL for some obstetrician-gynecologists.

Conclusion: The FDA Mifepristone REMS Program presents substantial barriers to obstetrician-gynecologists incorporating mifepristone into their EPL care.

Objectives: Both the National Abortion Federation Canada and Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights operate national toll-free hotlines that provide information, financial support, and travel assistance to abortion seekers. We aimed to characterize callers to both hotlines before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods: Hotline personnel routinely document information about callers and type(s) of assistance needed and received. We received call logs from both organizations for a two-year period (April 1, 2019 through March 31, 2021). We exported these data to Microsoft Excel® and analyzed them using descriptive statistics. We analyzed case notes for content and themes.

Results: Over the study period, the two hotlines worked with 270 unique callers. Nearly two-thirds of callers (n = 174) were seeking support to obtain abortion care for pregnancies after 14 weeks gestation, including 69 callers (26%) who were at or beyond 24 weeks gestation. Most callers were seeking support to obtain abortion care outside of their province of residence because services at their gestational age were not available. Caller needs were similar before and after the onset of the pandemic, but fewer traveled to the United States for abortion care in the COVID-19 era.

Discussion: Assistance hotlines play an important role in helping some abortion seekers navigate the Canadian health system to obtain needed abortion care. The needs of those seeking care after the 14 weeks gestation points to gaps in current service availability. Identifying ways to expand later abortion care in Canada, particularly after 24 weeks, appears warranted.

Introduction: In Georgia, maternal mortality is relatively high, and Black women are three times as likely to die from pregnancy-related causes as white women. Doulas can improve perinatal health and reduce disparities, but doula accessibility in Georgia is unclear.

Methods: This community-engaged mixed methods study surveyed and interviewed 17 doulas in Georgia. Surveys included structured questions on demographics, businesses, clientele, training, and challenges; we analyzed them using descriptive statistics. In-depth interviews included open-ended questions on doula care benefits, building their businesses, and improving access to doula care. We analyzed the content of transcripts using coding and memoing.

Results: Our diverse doula participants described providing life-saving services including education, referral to care, and patient advocacy. Yet they described numerous challenges to providing care and building their businesses. Almost all participants reported having fewer than their ideal number of clients and all reported being insufficiently paid for their services. Although training, mentoring, and networking help build their businesses, many doulas want to serve Black women, transgender men, gender non-binary individuals, and families living on lower incomes. Participants suggested Medicaid reimbursement and community health worker models as potential interventions for increasing equitable doula care access.

Discussion: Doulas can improve perinatal health outcomes and are urgently needed. Yet they face challenges in building businesses and finding clientele, especially from communities and groups at highest risk of negative outcomes during pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum period. Identifying avenues for supporting publicly-funded reimbursement, expanding equity-focused doula training, and fostering stronger doula networks with mentorship appears warranted.

Context: Abortion assistance funds constitute an important part of the healthcare safety net by covering some of abortion patients' out-of-pocket costs. Few studies have examined the other ways abortion assistance fund staff and volunteers support callers who need help obtaining care.

Methods: Between June and September 2020, we conducted in-depth interviews with 23 staff and volunteers at 11 local abortion assistance funds that helped Texans seeking abortion care following a March 2020 state executive order that prohibited most abortions. Interviewers explored respondents' experiences with callers whose appointments had been canceled or who traveled out of state and subsequent operational changes. We used both inductive and deductive codes in the thematic analysis.

Results: Abortion assistance fund staff and volunteers bridged callers' information gaps about the services and financial resources available and helped create plans to secure care that accounted for callers' specific needs. They provided emotional support so callers felt it was possible to overcome logistical hurdles to get an abortion, even if that required out-of-state travel. Respondents described greater collaboration between Texas-based abortion assistance funds and out-of-state organizations to support callers' more complex logistical needs and increased costs. Some callers who encountered multiple barriers to care, including interpersonal violence, were unable to obtain an abortion, even with additional supports.

Conclusions: Local abortion assistance funds worked with Texas callers to co-create person-centered plans for care and expanded inter-organization collaborations. Initiatives that bolster local assistance funds' infrastructure and capacity will be needed as the abortion access landscape becomes further restricted and complex.

Introduction: Agency in contraceptive decision-making is an essential aspect of reproductive autonomy. We conducted qualitative research to investigate what agency means to patients seeking contraceptive care to inform the development of a validated measure of this construct.

Methodology: We held four focus group discussions and seven interviews with sexually-active individuals assigned female at birth, ages 16-29 years, recruited from reproductive health clinics in Northern California. We explored experiences in contraceptive decision-making during the clinic visit. We coded data in ATLAS.ti and by hand, compared codes across three coders, and used thematic analysis to identify salient themes.

Results: The sample mean age was 21 years, with 17% of participants identifying as Asian, 23% as Black, 27% as Latinx, 17% as Multiracial/other, and 27% as white. Overall, participants reported active and engaged decision-making in their recent contraceptive visit but noted experiences that had undermined their agency in the past. They described how non-judgmental care allowed them to communicate openly, affirming their ability to make their own decisions. However, several mentioned how unexpected contraceptive side effects after the visit had reduced their sense of agency over their decision in retrospect. Several participants, including those who identified as Black, Latinx, and/or Asian, described prior experiences where pressure to use a contraceptive method had undermined their agency and where they had switched providers to regain agency over their contraceptive decisions.

Discussion: Most participants were aware of their agency during contraceptive visits and how it varied in different experiences with providers and the healthcare system. Patient perspectives can help to inform measurement development and ultimately the delivery of care that supports contraceptive agency.

Background: As a result of the June 2022 decision of the United States (US) Supreme Court, as many as 24 states have, or are expected to, ban or severely restrict abortion. We provide baseline information about abortion patients living in different state environments prior to this decision.

Methods: We obtained surveys from 6674 women, transgender men, and other pregnancy capable individuals accessing abortion care at 56 facilities across the US between June 2021 and July 2022. The final analytic sample uses information from 5930 abortion patients to compare the demographic and situational profiles of those living in the 24 states likely to ban abortion (restricted) to those living in states where it is likely to remain legal (protected).

Results: Compared to respondents who lived in protected states, abortion patients in restricted states were more likely to be Black (39% vs. 30%) or white (35% vs. 28%) and less likely to be Latinx (18% vs. 32%). Respondents in restricted states were more likely to be paying out-of-pocket for care (87% vs. 42%), be relying on financial assistance (22% vs. 11%), and indicate that it was difficult to pay for the abortion (54% vs. 28%). Twelve percent of respondents who lived in a restricted state crossed state lines for care and the majority (59%) was going to another restricted state.

Discussion: Prior to June 2022, abortion patients in restricted states encountered more situational and financial barriers compared to those in protected states. These barriers have undoubtedly been exacerbated by abortion bans.

Context: Removing the prescription requirement and making oral contraceptive pills available over the counter (OTC) could increase contraceptive access in the United States. Despite current efforts to make a progestin-only pill (POP) available OTC, there are no qualitative data exploring the experiences of POP users and their perspectives on making POPs available OTC.

Methods: We conducted six online, asynchronous focus group discussions with 36 POP users between July and November 2020. We stratified focus group discussion placement based on three reasons for POP use: breastfeeding, having a contraindication to estrogen (for a reason other than breastfeeding), and for any other reason. We thematically analyzed these data using inductive and deductive coding.

Results: The majority of participants described their overall POP experience as positive, mostly because they experienced minor or no side effects and thought the pill was effective. Participants overwhelmingly supported OTC availability of POPs and expressed interest in purchasing an OTC POP. Over one-third of participants had very limited knowledge or held inaccurate assumptions about POPs before they started using this method and many stressed the need to disseminate accurate information and resources about POPs to the public.

Conclusions: Most focus group discussion participants were satisfied with POPs and supported OTC access. While misconceptions and concerns about POPs should be addressed, an OTC POP has the potential to be a safe, effective, and convenient contraceptive option in the United States.

Introduction: The initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic affected abortion care in the United States (US) in myriad ways. While research has documented systems-level pandemic-related impacts on abortion access and care delivery little information exists about the experiences of abortion seekers during this period. We sought to document the effects of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions US abortion seekers by analyzing posts on Reddit, a popular social media website.

Methods: We compiled and coded 528 anonymous posts on the abortion subreddit from 3/20/2020 to 4/12/2020 and applied inductive qualitative analytic techniques to identify themes.

Results: We identified four primary themes. First, posters reported several COVID-19-related barriers to abortion services: reduced in-person access due to clinic closures, mail delivery delays of abortion medications, and pandemic-related financial barriers to both self-managed and in-clinic abortion. The second theme encompassed quarantine-driven privacy challenges, primarily challenges with concealing an abortion from household members. Third, posters detailed how the pandemic constrained their pregnancy decision making, including time pressure from impending clinic closures. Finally, posters reported COVID-19-related changes to service delivery that negatively affected their abortion experiences, for example being unable to bring a support person into the clinic due to pandemic visitor restrictions.

Discussion: This analysis of real-time social media posts reveals multiple ways that the COVID-19 pandemic limited abortion access in the US and affected abortion seekers' decisions and experiences. Findings shed light on the consequences of sudden changes, whether pandemic or policy related, on abortion service delivery.