Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health最新文献

Context: The important role of Title X sites in supporting publicly funded reproductive healthcare was elevated during the COVID-19 pandemic, as many people experienced economic uncertainty and changed their fertility preferences. In this study, we assessed changes in service delivery during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic at Title X-supported sites in Texas, a large state with a high uninsured rate and a diverse Title X network.

Methods: Using surveys of Title X-funded organizations in Texas from April and November 2020, we examined the percentage of organizations reporting service modifications. With administrative data on 507,947 client encounters between March 2019 and March 2021, we assessed change in client volume at the onset of the pandemic and evaluated the association between regional COVID-19 case rates and the provision of key Title X services.

Results: In April 2020, most organizations (78%) limited in-person operations while implementing telehealth (74%) and contactless contraception (67%). Network-wide encounter volume declined by 26% at pandemic onset (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.65, 0.84). Health departments experienced the steepest declines in encounter volume (IRR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.36-0.50). Weekly encounters, particularly for long-acting reversible method placement/removal and sexually transmitted infection testing, decreased as COVID-19 rates increased.

Conclusions: Investment in public health infrastructure, including providing robust support to health departments as well as rebuilding and expanding the Title X network, is essential to safeguarding access to publicly funded reproductive healthcare during and after the pandemic.

Context: Direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion allows people to receive mifepristone and misoprostol for medication abortion in their home without requiring an in-person visit with a healthcare provider. This method has high efficacy and safety, but less is known about the person-centered quality of care provided with telemedicine.

Methods: We interviewed 45 participants from the TelAbortion study of direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion in the United States from January to July 2020. Semi-structured qualitative interviews queried their choices, barriers to care, expectations for care, actual abortion experience, and suggestions for improvement. We developed a codebook through an iterative, inductive process and performed content and thematic analyses.

Results: The experience of direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion met the person-centered domains of dignity, autonomy, privacy, communication, social support, supportive care, trust, and environment. Four themes relate to the person-centered framework for reproductive health equity: (1) Participants felt well-supported and safe with TelAbortion; (2) Participants had autonomy in their care which led to feelings of empowerment; (3) TelAbortion exceeded expectations; and (4) Challenges arose when interfacing with the healthcare system outside of TelAbortion. Participants perceived abortion stigma which often led them to avoid traditional care and experienced enacted stigma during encounters with non-study healthcare workers.

Conclusion: TelAbortion is a high quality, person-centered care model that can empower patients seeking care in an increasingly challenging abortion context.

Context: The COVID-19 pandemic abruptly disrupted the provision of sexual and reproductive health care in the United States.

Methods: We conducted interviews with family planning clinic staff at 55 health care facilities in Arizona, Iowa, and Wisconsin in late 2020 and early 2021. We asked respondents about the challenges they faced and ways they adapted their service provision as a result of the pandemic. We conducted content and thematic analyses of the interview transcripts using an inductively developed qualitative coding scheme.

Results: Family planning clinics and providers made a variety of changes to their clinic operations and service delivery. The three major areas of change for these facilities were implementation of COVID-19 safety procedures, shifting service delivery and staffing to meet patient needs, and the rapid uptake and expansion of telehealth.

Conclusion: While providers faced many challenges, they also described opportunities to innovate and rethink standard of care protocols that may continue to shape sexual and reproductive health care even after the pandemic abates.

Introduction: Although debate remains about the saliency and relevance of pro-choice and pro-life labels (as abortion belief indicators), they have been consistently used for decades to broadly designate abortion identity. However, clear labels are less apparent in other languages (e.g., Spanish). Social media, as an exploratory data science tool, can be leveraged to identify the presence and popularity of online abortion identity labels and how they are contextualized online.

Purpose: This study aims to determine how popularly used Spanish-language pro-choice and pro-life identity labels are contextualized online.

Method: We used Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic models, an unsupervised natural language processing (NLP) application, to generate themes about Spanish language tweets categorized by Spanish abortion identity labels: (1) proelección (pro-choice); (2) derecho a decidir (right to choose); (3) proaborto (pro-abortion); (4) provida (pro-life); (5) antiaborto (anti-abortion); and (6) derecho a vivir (right to life). We manually reviewed themes for each identity label to assess scope.

Results: All six identity labels included in our analysis contained some references to abortion. However, several labels were not exclusive to abortion. Proelección (pro-choice), for example, contained several themes related to ongoing presidential elections.

Discussion and conclusion: No singular Spanish abortion identity label encapsulates abortion beliefs; however, there are several viable options. Just as the debate remains ongoing about pro-choice and pro-life as accurate indicators of abortion beliefs in English, we must also consider that identity is more complex than binary labels in Spanish.

Context: Understanding how pregnancy preferences shape contraceptive use is essential for guiding contraceptive interventions and policies that center individuals' preferences and desires. Lack of rigorous measurement of pregnancy preferences, particularly on the population level, has been a methodologic challenge.

Methods: We investigated associations between prospective pregnancy preferences, measured with a valid instrument, the Desire to Avoid Pregnancy (DAP) scale, and contraceptive use in a representative sample of 2601 pregnancy-capable self-identified women, aged 18-44 years, in Alabama and South Carolina (2017-2018). We used multivariable regression with weighting to investigate how probability of modern contraceptive use, and use of different contraceptive method types, changed with increasing preference to avoid pregnancy.

Results: Desire to Avoid Pregnancy scale scores (range:0-4, 4 = greater preference to avoid pregnancy, median = 2.29, IQR: 1.57-3.14; α:0.95) were strongly associated with contraceptive use among sexually active respondents (aPR = 1.15 [1.10, 1.20]; predicted 45% using contraception among DAP = 0, 62% among DAP = 2, 86% among DAP = 4). Method types used did not differ by DAP score. The most common reasons for nonuse were concern over side effects and not wanting to use a method (32% each) among respondents with mid-range and high DAP scores. Among those with mid-range DAP scores, 20% reported nonuse due to not minding if pregnancy were to occur (vs. 0% among those with high DAP scores).

Conclusions: Pregnancy preferences strongly influence likelihood of contraceptive use. Providion of appropriate contraceptive care to those not explicitly desiring pregnancy must differentiate between ranges of feelings about pregnancy, perceived drawbacks to contraceptive use, and legitimate psychological and interpersonal benefits of nonuse to promote autonomy in contraceptive decision-making.

Context: The COVID-19 pandemic increased the provision of contraception through telemedicine. This qualitative study describes provider perceptions of how telemedicine provision of contraception has impacted patient care.

Methods: We interviewed 40 obstetrics-gynecology and family medicine physicians, midwives, nurse practitioners, and support staff providing contraception via telemedicine in practices across Illinois, including Planned Parenthood of Illinois (PPIL) health centers. We analyzed interview content to identify themes around the perceived impact of telemedicine implementation on contraception access, contraceptive counseling, patient privacy, and provision of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC).

Results: Participants perceived that telemedicine implementation improved care by increasing contraception access, increasing focus on counseling while reducing bias, and allowing easier method switching. Participants thought disparities in telemedicine usage and limitations to the technological interface presented barriers to patient care. Participants' perceptions of how telemedicine implementation impacts patient privacy and LARC provision were mixed. Some participants found telemedicine implementation enhanced privacy, while others felt unable to ensure privacy in a virtual space. Participants found telemedicine modalities useful for counseling patients considering methods of LARC, but they sometimes presented an unnecessary extra step for those sure about receiving one at a practice offering same day insertion.

Conclusion: Providers felt telemedicine provision of contraception positively impacted patient care. Improvements to counseling and easier access to method switching suggest that telemedicine implementation may help reduce contraceptive coercion. Our findings highlight the need to integrate LARC care with telemedicine workflows, improve patient privacy protections, and promote equitable access to all telemedicine modalities.

Context: Compared with the general population in Australia, men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM) have higher rates of HIV and sexually transmissible infections (STIs). Despite widespread advice to test regularly, a minority of these men remain "hard to reach." We undertook qualitative interviews with a group of such men in Sydney to better understand their views and experiences in relation to sexual health screening.

Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with men engaging with HIV/STI screening services at a sex-on-premises-venue and the local Sexual Health Service in Greater Western Sydney. We analyzed these data for content and themes.

Results: Sexual behaviors and identities were diverse, often discordant and compartmentalized from everyday lives. Overall, reported HIV/STI knowledge was poor and men did not see themselves at risk of HIV/STIs regardless of sexual behavior. Men took calculated risks and balanced with pleasure and escapism. Reasons for avoidance of testing included fear, unwillingness to disclose behavior, privacy concerns, and perceived low risk. Men viewed sexual health care as distinct from general health care. Service delivery preferences varied by service venue. Participants highlighted convenience, confidentiality, and trust as critical factors for a testing service.

Conclusion: A variety of testing options are needed to engage hard-to-reach MSM. Opportunities to enhance testing may include expanding health messaging, demystifying testing, and delinking sexual identity from sexual behavior and risk, thus promoting advantages of testing and establishing testing as standard of care.

Context: Community-based birth doulas support pregnant women, transgender men, and gender non-binary individuals during the perinatal period and provide essential services and expertise that address health inequities, often taking on additional roles to fill systemic gaps in perinatal care in the United States (US). Despite the benefits that community-based birth doulas provide, there is little research exploring the work-related conditions and stressors community-based doulas experience. To address this gap, we examined the work experiences, related stressors, and stress management strategies of individual community-based birth doulas.

Methods: In this qualitative, descriptive study we conducted 18 interviews in March through June 2021 with individuals who self-identified as community-based doulas working in underserved communities in the US. We analyzed the interviews for themes, which we defined and finalized through team consensus.

Results: The doulas reported engaging in specific strategies in their work to address perinatal inequities. They also described facing several work-related stressors, including witnessing discrimination against clients, experiencing discrimination in medical environments, and struggling with financial instability. To mitigate these stressors and job-related challenges, interviewees reported they relied on doula peer support and reconnected with their motivations for the work.

Conclusions: Community-based doulas provide essential services and expertise which address inequities and systemic gaps in perinatal care. However, as they work to improve perinatal health, doulas themselves are providing equity work amidst an inequitable system and with insufficient political or financial support. Increased compensation and systemic support which acknowledges the breadth of services provided is needed to strengthen and sustain this critical part of the perinatal workforce.

Introduction: This study addressed deficient information on the provision of infertility care in obstetrics and gynecology clinics. We additionally evaluated the availability of these services based on clinic affiliations or stated sexual orientation.

Methodology: We performed a national cross-sectional "mystery caller" survey of 293 general obstetrics and gynecology clinics in 2017-2018. We matched clinics identified by web-based search engine in a 1:1 ratio by Catholic hospital affiliation, after determining number of clinics based on state-population densities. A standard call script included questions regarding provision of infertility services, ovulation induction methods, and information about the caller's sexual orientation. We performed descriptive frequencies and compared responses based on hospital affiliations.

Results: Of the 293 clinics included, 49% were affiliated with Catholic and 17% with academic hospitals. The majority offered infertility care (85%, 248/293), and of these 97% (240/248) offered ovulation induction. Only 3% (6/240) reported they would not provide to women in same-sex relationships. Most clinics not offering infertility evaluations (43/45, 96%) cited it was outside of their scope of care and of these 33% (15/45) did not provide information for self-referral. Clinics affiliated with academic (aOR 0.23) or Catholic (aOR 0.34) hospitals were less likely to provide evaluations. Those with academic affiliation were more likely to provide information for self-referral (aOR 19.2).

Discussion: Most general obstetrics and gynecology practices offered appointments for infertility evaluation and ovulation induction. Clinics rarely denied services to women reporting a same-sex partnership, regardless of hospital affiliation. These findings provide reassurance to same-sex couples seeking fertility care.

Context: Many people wanted to avoid or delay childbearing during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study sought to examine the extent COVID-19 influenced abortion care-seeking in a region that did not enact policy restricting abortion due to the pandemic, has high service availability, and few abortion-restrictive policies.

Methodology: We conducted telephone surveys with adults (n=72) requesting abortion appointments between September 2020 and March 2021 at five clinics in Washington, DC, Maryland, and Virginia. We used χ² tests to compare sociodemographic, reproductive history, service delivery characteristics, and pandemic-related life changes by whether COVID-19 influenced abortion care-seeking.

Results: Most respondents (93%) had an abortion at the time of the survey, 4% were awaiting their scheduled appointment, and 3% did not have an appointment scheduled. Nearly 40% of people reported COVID-19 influenced their decision to have an abortion. These individuals were significantly more likely to report "not financially prepared" (44% vs. 16%) as a reason for termination compared to people reporting no influence of COVID-19. They were also more likely to have lost or changed their health insurance due to pandemic-related employment changes (15% vs. 2%), report substantial money difficulties due to COVID-19 (59% vs. 33%), and report that paying for their abortion was "very difficult" (25% vs. 2%).

Conclusion: COVID-19 influenced many people to have an abortion, particularly those financially disadvantaged by the pandemic. Expansion of Medicaid abortion coverage in Washington, DC and Virginia could reduce financial barriers to care and help people to better meet their reproductive needs amid future crises.