美国危机怀孕中心和堕胎设施的空间分析,2021 年(多布斯之前):横断面研究。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH JMIR Public Health and Surveillance Pub Date : 2024-11-06 DOI:10.2196/60001
Andrea Swartzendruber, Nicole Luisi, Erin R Johnson, Danielle N Lambert
{"title":"美国危机怀孕中心和堕胎设施的空间分析,2021 年(多布斯之前):横断面研究。","authors":"Andrea Swartzendruber, Nicole Luisi, Erin R Johnson, Danielle N Lambert","doi":"10.2196/60001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) are religious nonprofit organizations with a primary mission of diverting people from having abortions. One CPC tactic has been to locate near abortion facilities. Despite medical groups' warnings that CPCs do not adhere to medical and ethical standards and pose risks, government support for CPCs has significantly increased.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to map CPCs, abortion facilities, and geographical areas in the United States into 4 zones based on their proximity to CPCs and abortion facilities. We sought to describe the number and percentage of reproductive-aged women living in each zone and the proximity of CPCs to abortion facilities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using 2021 data from CPC Map and the Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health Abortion Facility Database, we determined the ratio of CPCs to abortion facilities. Along with census data, we categorized and mapped US block groups into 4 distinct zones based on locations of block group centroids within 15-mile (1 mile is approximately 1.609 km) radii of CPCs and abortion facilities, namely \"no presence,\" \"CPC only,\" \"abortion facility only,\" and \"dual presence.\" We calculated the number and percentage of block groups and reproductive-aged (15-49 years) women living in each zone. We calculated driving distances and drive times from abortion facilities to the nearest CPC and mapped abortion facilities with CPCs in close proximity. All analyses were conducted nationally and by region, division, and state.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nationally, the ratio of CPCs to abortion facilities was 3.4, and 54.9% (131,410/239,462) of block groups were categorized in the \"dual presence\" zone, 26.6% (63,679/239,462) as \"CPC only,\" and 0.8% (63,679/239,462) as \"abortion facility only.\" Most reproductive-aged women (45,150,110/75,582,028, 59.7%) lived in a \"dual presence\" zone, 26.1% (19,696,572/75,582,028) in a \"CPC only\" zone, and 0.8% (625,403/75,582,028) in an \"abortion facility only\" zone. The number of block groups and women classified as living in each zone varied by region, division, and state. Nationally, the median distance from abortion facilities to the nearest CPC was 2 miles, and the median drive time was 5.5 minutes. Minimum drive times were <1 minute in all but 11 states. The percentages of abortion facilities with a CPC within 0.25, 0.5, 1, and 3 miles were 14.1% (107/757), 22.6% (171/757), 36.1% (273/757), and 66.3% (502/757), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings suggest that CPCs' tactic of locating near abortion facilities was largely realized before the 2022 US Supreme Court decision that overturned the federal right to abortion. Research on CPCs' locations and tactics should continue given the dynamic abortion policy landscape and risks posed by CPCs. Tailored programming to raise awareness about CPCs and help people identify and access safe sources of health care may mitigate harm. Increased regulation of CPCs and government divestment may also mitigate CPC harms.</p>","PeriodicalId":14765,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Public Health and Surveillance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Spatial Analyses of Crisis Pregnancy Centers and Abortion Facilities in the United States, 2021 (Pre-Dobbs): Cross-Sectional Study.\",\"authors\":\"Andrea Swartzendruber, Nicole Luisi, Erin R Johnson, Danielle N Lambert\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/60001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) are religious nonprofit organizations with a primary mission of diverting people from having abortions. One CPC tactic has been to locate near abortion facilities. Despite medical groups' warnings that CPCs do not adhere to medical and ethical standards and pose risks, government support for CPCs has significantly increased.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to map CPCs, abortion facilities, and geographical areas in the United States into 4 zones based on their proximity to CPCs and abortion facilities. We sought to describe the number and percentage of reproductive-aged women living in each zone and the proximity of CPCs to abortion facilities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using 2021 data from CPC Map and the Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health Abortion Facility Database, we determined the ratio of CPCs to abortion facilities. Along with census data, we categorized and mapped US block groups into 4 distinct zones based on locations of block group centroids within 15-mile (1 mile is approximately 1.609 km) radii of CPCs and abortion facilities, namely \\\"no presence,\\\" \\\"CPC only,\\\" \\\"abortion facility only,\\\" and \\\"dual presence.\\\" We calculated the number and percentage of block groups and reproductive-aged (15-49 years) women living in each zone. We calculated driving distances and drive times from abortion facilities to the nearest CPC and mapped abortion facilities with CPCs in close proximity. All analyses were conducted nationally and by region, division, and state.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nationally, the ratio of CPCs to abortion facilities was 3.4, and 54.9% (131,410/239,462) of block groups were categorized in the \\\"dual presence\\\" zone, 26.6% (63,679/239,462) as \\\"CPC only,\\\" and 0.8% (63,679/239,462) as \\\"abortion facility only.\\\" Most reproductive-aged women (45,150,110/75,582,028, 59.7%) lived in a \\\"dual presence\\\" zone, 26.1% (19,696,572/75,582,028) in a \\\"CPC only\\\" zone, and 0.8% (625,403/75,582,028) in an \\\"abortion facility only\\\" zone. The number of block groups and women classified as living in each zone varied by region, division, and state. Nationally, the median distance from abortion facilities to the nearest CPC was 2 miles, and the median drive time was 5.5 minutes. Minimum drive times were <1 minute in all but 11 states. The percentages of abortion facilities with a CPC within 0.25, 0.5, 1, and 3 miles were 14.1% (107/757), 22.6% (171/757), 36.1% (273/757), and 66.3% (502/757), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings suggest that CPCs' tactic of locating near abortion facilities was largely realized before the 2022 US Supreme Court decision that overturned the federal right to abortion. Research on CPCs' locations and tactics should continue given the dynamic abortion policy landscape and risks posed by CPCs. Tailored programming to raise awareness about CPCs and help people identify and access safe sources of health care may mitigate harm. Increased regulation of CPCs and government divestment may also mitigate CPC harms.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Public Health and Surveillance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Public Health and Surveillance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/60001\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Public Health and Surveillance","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/60001","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:危机怀孕中心(CPCs)是宗教性非营利组织,其主要任务是劝导人们不要堕胎。危机怀孕中心的一种策略是将其设在堕胎机构附近。尽管医疗团体警告说 CPC 不遵守医疗和道德标准并带来风险,但政府对 CPC 的支持仍大幅增加:本研究旨在将美国的 CPC、人工流产设施和地理区域划分为 4 个区域,根据其与 CPC 和人工流产设施的邻近程度。我们试图描述生活在每个区域的育龄妇女的数量和比例,以及 CPC 与人工流产设施的距离:我们利用 CPC Map 和 "推进生殖健康新标准人工流产设施数据库 "中的 2021 年数据,确定了 CPC 与人工流产设施的比例。除了人口普查数据外,我们还根据街区组中心点在 CPC 和人工流产设施 15 英里(1 英里约合 1.609 千米)半径范围内的位置,将美国街区组划分为 4 个不同的区域,即 "无存在"、"仅有 CPC"、"仅有人工流产设施 "和 "双重存在"。我们计算了居住在每个区域的街区组和育龄(15-49 岁)妇女的数量和百分比。我们计算了从人工流产机构到最近的 CPC 的行车距离和行车时间,并绘制了人工流产机构与附近 CPC 的地图。所有分析均在全国范围内进行,并按地区、分区和州进行:在全国范围内,CPC 与人工流产机构的比例为 3.4,54.9%(131,410/239,462)的街区组被归类为 "双重存在 "区,26.6%(63,679/239,462)被归类为 "仅有 CPC",0.8%(63,679/239,462)被归类为 "仅有人工流产机构"。大多数育龄妇女(45 150 110 人/75 582 028 人,59.7%)居住在 "双重存在 "区,26.1%(19 696 572 人/75 582 028 人)居住在 "仅 CPC "区,0.8%(625 403 人/75 582 028 人)居住在 "仅堕胎设施 "区。被归类为生活在每个区域的街区组和妇女人数因地区、分区和州而异。在全国范围内,从人工流产机构到最近的 CPC 的中位距离为 2 英里,中位驾车时间为 5.5 分钟。最短驾车时间为结论:研究结果表明,在 2022 年美国最高法院做出推翻联邦堕胎权的判决之前,CPC 在堕胎机构附近选址的策略已基本实现。鉴于不断变化的堕胎政策环境和 CPC 带来的风险,应继续对 CPC 的选址和策略进行研究。制定有针对性的计划以提高人们对 CPC 的认识,并帮助人们识别和获取安全的医疗保健来源,可减轻伤害。加强对 CPC 的监管和政府撤资也可减轻 CPC 的危害。
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
Spatial Analyses of Crisis Pregnancy Centers and Abortion Facilities in the United States, 2021 (Pre-Dobbs): Cross-Sectional Study.

Background: Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) are religious nonprofit organizations with a primary mission of diverting people from having abortions. One CPC tactic has been to locate near abortion facilities. Despite medical groups' warnings that CPCs do not adhere to medical and ethical standards and pose risks, government support for CPCs has significantly increased.

Objective: This study aims to map CPCs, abortion facilities, and geographical areas in the United States into 4 zones based on their proximity to CPCs and abortion facilities. We sought to describe the number and percentage of reproductive-aged women living in each zone and the proximity of CPCs to abortion facilities.

Methods: Using 2021 data from CPC Map and the Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health Abortion Facility Database, we determined the ratio of CPCs to abortion facilities. Along with census data, we categorized and mapped US block groups into 4 distinct zones based on locations of block group centroids within 15-mile (1 mile is approximately 1.609 km) radii of CPCs and abortion facilities, namely "no presence," "CPC only," "abortion facility only," and "dual presence." We calculated the number and percentage of block groups and reproductive-aged (15-49 years) women living in each zone. We calculated driving distances and drive times from abortion facilities to the nearest CPC and mapped abortion facilities with CPCs in close proximity. All analyses were conducted nationally and by region, division, and state.

Results: Nationally, the ratio of CPCs to abortion facilities was 3.4, and 54.9% (131,410/239,462) of block groups were categorized in the "dual presence" zone, 26.6% (63,679/239,462) as "CPC only," and 0.8% (63,679/239,462) as "abortion facility only." Most reproductive-aged women (45,150,110/75,582,028, 59.7%) lived in a "dual presence" zone, 26.1% (19,696,572/75,582,028) in a "CPC only" zone, and 0.8% (625,403/75,582,028) in an "abortion facility only" zone. The number of block groups and women classified as living in each zone varied by region, division, and state. Nationally, the median distance from abortion facilities to the nearest CPC was 2 miles, and the median drive time was 5.5 minutes. Minimum drive times were <1 minute in all but 11 states. The percentages of abortion facilities with a CPC within 0.25, 0.5, 1, and 3 miles were 14.1% (107/757), 22.6% (171/757), 36.1% (273/757), and 66.3% (502/757), respectively.

Conclusions: The findings suggest that CPCs' tactic of locating near abortion facilities was largely realized before the 2022 US Supreme Court decision that overturned the federal right to abortion. Research on CPCs' locations and tactics should continue given the dynamic abortion policy landscape and risks posed by CPCs. Tailored programming to raise awareness about CPCs and help people identify and access safe sources of health care may mitigate harm. Increased regulation of CPCs and government divestment may also mitigate CPC harms.

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
CiteScore
13.70
自引率
2.40%
发文量
136
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: JMIR Public Health & Surveillance (JPHS) is a renowned scholarly journal indexed on PubMed. It follows a rigorous peer-review process and covers a wide range of disciplines. The journal distinguishes itself by its unique focus on the intersection of technology and innovation in the field of public health. JPHS delves into diverse topics such as public health informatics, surveillance systems, rapid reports, participatory epidemiology, infodemiology, infoveillance, digital disease detection, digital epidemiology, electronic public health interventions, mass media and social media campaigns, health communication, and emerging population health analysis systems and tools.
期刊最新文献
Awareness and Uptake of HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis and Postexposure Prophylaxis Among College Students With Sexual Experiences: Institutional-Based Cross-Sectional Study. Correction: Effectiveness of Risk-Adapted Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Screening in China: Prospective Cohort Study. Spatial Analyses of Crisis Pregnancy Centers and Abortion Facilities in the United States, 2021 (Pre-Dobbs): Cross-Sectional Study. Digital Contact Tracing Implementation Among Leaders and Health Care Workers in a Pediatric Hospital During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Interview Study. Association Between Self-Reported Protective Behavior and Heat-Associated Health Complaints Among Patients With Chronic Diseases in Primary Care: Results of the CLIMATE Pilot Cohort Study.
×
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