Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health最新文献

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.

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.

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.