医生的声音激发了对堕胎护理的支持:一项全国代表性调查的结果。

Lisa H Harris, Amy Simon, Meghan Seewald, Sara Knight, Lisa Martin
{"title":"医生的声音激发了对堕胎护理的支持:一项全国代表性调查的结果。","authors":"Lisa H Harris, Amy Simon, Meghan Seewald, Sara Knight, Lisa Martin","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110535","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We tested abortion messaging to develop evidence-based communication recommendations for doctors who provide abortion care.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We conducted an online survey in a nationally representative sample of 1215 people, using National Opinion Research Center's Amerispeak Panel. We surveyed participants before and after viewing two brief videos featuring doctors who provide abortion care speaking about their work. Doctors' comments were grounded in strategic communications and applied psychology research, and emphasized caregiving roles, avoided political-sounding punditry, and acknowledged abortion's complexities. We assessed participants' characterizations of doctors, and how these characterizations impact support for abortion restrictions and views on abortion legality. We analyzed pre-post data using descriptive statistics, t tests, and multivariable regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Postmessaging more participants endorsed positive descriptors of doctors who provide abortion care (p < 0.001, t = 8.99); fewer endorsed negative descriptors (p < 0.001, t = 10.32). Increased postmessaging endorsement of positive descriptors predicted declines in support for abortion restrictions (adjusted odds ratio = 1.69, p < 0.01); decreased endorsement of negative descriptors did not. After messaging, 37% of respondents said their views of doctors who provide abortion care made them less likely to support abortion restrictions, compared to 14% before (p < 0.001, t = -6.9). After messaging, there was more overall support for legal abortion and less for abortion being mostly illegal (46% to 48% and 24% to 22%, p < 0.001; t = -4.11).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When doctors who provide abortion care use messaging recommendations that include speaking about abortion's complexities and avoiding political-sounding punditry, they generate more support for legal abortion and less for restrictions.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>The voices of doctors who provide abortion care shape public opinion. When doctors speak from caregiving perspectives, avoid punditry, and acknowledge abortion's complexities, they generate more support for legal abortion and less for restrictions. However, audiences may not be aware a priori that ideas of doctors shape their views.</p>","PeriodicalId":93955,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Doctors' voices generate support for abortion care: Results from a nationally representative survey.\",\"authors\":\"Lisa H Harris, Amy Simon, Meghan Seewald, Sara Knight, Lisa Martin\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110535\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We tested abortion messaging to develop evidence-based communication recommendations for doctors who provide abortion care.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We conducted an online survey in a nationally representative sample of 1215 people, using National Opinion Research Center's Amerispeak Panel. We surveyed participants before and after viewing two brief videos featuring doctors who provide abortion care speaking about their work. Doctors' comments were grounded in strategic communications and applied psychology research, and emphasized caregiving roles, avoided political-sounding punditry, and acknowledged abortion's complexities. We assessed participants' characterizations of doctors, and how these characterizations impact support for abortion restrictions and views on abortion legality. We analyzed pre-post data using descriptive statistics, t tests, and multivariable regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Postmessaging more participants endorsed positive descriptors of doctors who provide abortion care (p < 0.001, t = 8.99); fewer endorsed negative descriptors (p < 0.001, t = 10.32). Increased postmessaging endorsement of positive descriptors predicted declines in support for abortion restrictions (adjusted odds ratio = 1.69, p < 0.01); decreased endorsement of negative descriptors did not. After messaging, 37% of respondents said their views of doctors who provide abortion care made them less likely to support abortion restrictions, compared to 14% before (p < 0.001, t = -6.9). After messaging, there was more overall support for legal abortion and less for abortion being mostly illegal (46% to 48% and 24% to 22%, p < 0.001; t = -4.11).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When doctors who provide abortion care use messaging recommendations that include speaking about abortion's complexities and avoiding political-sounding punditry, they generate more support for legal abortion and less for restrictions.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>The voices of doctors who provide abortion care shape public opinion. When doctors speak from caregiving perspectives, avoid punditry, and acknowledge abortion's complexities, they generate more support for legal abortion and less for restrictions. However, audiences may not be aware a priori that ideas of doctors shape their views.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93955,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contraception\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contraception\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110535\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contraception","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110535","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们测试了人工流产信息,以便为提供人工流产护理的医生制定循证沟通建议:我们对人工流产信息进行了测试,以便为提供人工流产护理的医生制定基于证据的沟通建议:我们使用 NORC 的 Amerispeak® Panel 对具有全国代表性的 1,215 人进行了在线调查。我们在观看两段简短视频前后对参与者进行了调查,视频中提供人工流产护理的医生讲述了他们的工作。医生们的评论以战略传播和应用心理学研究为基础,强调了护理角色,避免了听起来像政治专家的言论,并承认了堕胎的复杂性。我们评估了参与者对提供堕胎护理的医生的定性、这些定性如何影响对堕胎限制的支持以及对堕胎合法性的总体看法。我们使用描述性统计、t 检验和多变量回归分析了前后数据:结果:信息发布后,更多参与者对提供人工流产护理的医生给予了积极的描述(p结论:当提供人工流产护理的医生使用包括谈论人工流产的复杂性和避免听起来像政治专家的信息传播建议时,他们会获得更多对合法人工流产的支持,减少对限制的支持:影响:提供堕胎护理的医生的声音左右着堕胎的公众舆论。当医生从护理角度出发,避免学究气,承认堕胎的复杂性时,他们会获得更多对合法堕胎的支持,减少对限制堕胎的支持。然而,受众可能先验地没有意识到医生的想法会影响他们的观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Doctors' voices generate support for abortion care: Results from a nationally representative survey.

Objectives: We tested abortion messaging to develop evidence-based communication recommendations for doctors who provide abortion care.

Study design: We conducted an online survey in a nationally representative sample of 1215 people, using National Opinion Research Center's Amerispeak Panel. We surveyed participants before and after viewing two brief videos featuring doctors who provide abortion care speaking about their work. Doctors' comments were grounded in strategic communications and applied psychology research, and emphasized caregiving roles, avoided political-sounding punditry, and acknowledged abortion's complexities. We assessed participants' characterizations of doctors, and how these characterizations impact support for abortion restrictions and views on abortion legality. We analyzed pre-post data using descriptive statistics, t tests, and multivariable regression.

Results: Postmessaging more participants endorsed positive descriptors of doctors who provide abortion care (p < 0.001, t = 8.99); fewer endorsed negative descriptors (p < 0.001, t = 10.32). Increased postmessaging endorsement of positive descriptors predicted declines in support for abortion restrictions (adjusted odds ratio = 1.69, p < 0.01); decreased endorsement of negative descriptors did not. After messaging, 37% of respondents said their views of doctors who provide abortion care made them less likely to support abortion restrictions, compared to 14% before (p < 0.001, t = -6.9). After messaging, there was more overall support for legal abortion and less for abortion being mostly illegal (46% to 48% and 24% to 22%, p < 0.001; t = -4.11).

Conclusions: When doctors who provide abortion care use messaging recommendations that include speaking about abortion's complexities and avoiding political-sounding punditry, they generate more support for legal abortion and less for restrictions.

Implications: The voices of doctors who provide abortion care shape public opinion. When doctors speak from caregiving perspectives, avoid punditry, and acknowledge abortion's complexities, they generate more support for legal abortion and less for restrictions. However, audiences may not be aware a priori that ideas of doctors shape their views.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Economic analysis of foregoing Rh immunoglobulin for bleeding in pregnancy <12 weeks gestation. Modeling the impact of decreasing waiting period length for Medicaid sterilization: A multi-site cohort study. Ongoing contraceptive goals of patients who did not achieve desired postpartum permanent contraception prior to hospital discharge. The association of insertion methods on immediate postpartum intrauterine device expulsion rates: A retrospective cohort study. Society of Family Planning Research Practice Support: Strategies and considerations for addressing race and racism in quantitative family planning studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1