罗伊案后在 "r/abortion "中分享的堕胎障碍:对 2022 年多布斯案判决泄漏后 Reddit 社区的定性分析。

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters Pub Date : 2024-11-08 DOI:10.1080/26410397.2024.2426921
Elizabeth Pleasants, Karen Weidert, Lindsay Parham, Emma Anderson, Eliza Dolgins, Coye Cheshire, Cassondra Marshall, Ndola Prata, Ushma Upadhyay
{"title":"罗伊案后在 \"r/abortion \"中分享的堕胎障碍:对 2022 年多布斯案判决泄漏后 Reddit 社区的定性分析。","authors":"Elizabeth Pleasants, Karen Weidert, Lindsay Parham, Emma Anderson, Eliza Dolgins, Coye Cheshire, Cassondra Marshall, Ndola Prata, Ushma Upadhyay","doi":"10.1080/26410397.2024.2426921","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>With drastic changes to abortion policy, the months following the Dobbs leak and subsequent decision in 2022 were a uniquely uncertain and difficult time for abortion access in the US. To understand experiences of challenges to abortion access during that time, we used a hybrid inductive and deductive thematic coding approach to analyse descriptions of barriers and their impacts shared in an abortion subreddit (r/abortion). A simple random sample of 10% of posts was obtained from those shared from 02 May 2022 through 23 December 2022; comments were purposively sampled during the coding process. In this sample of submissions (n = 523 posts, 88 comments), people described structural barriers identified in past research, including state abortion bans and gestational limits, high costs, limited appointment availability, and long travel required. Posters also commonly described known social barriers, including limited social support and abortion stigma. Several impactful barriers not well-described in past research emerged inductively, including wait time for receiving mail-ordered abortion medication, low credibility of online ordering platforms, and concerns about legal risks of accessing abortion or related medical care. The most common consequences of experiencing barriers were adverse mental health outcomes, delayed access to care, and being compelled to self-manage their abortion because of access barriers. This analysis provides timely insights into the experiences and impacts of abortion access barriers in a group of people with a range of engagement with clinical abortion care, lived experiences, and points in their abortion processes, with public health implications for mental health and abortion access.</p>","PeriodicalId":37074,"journal":{"name":"Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters","volume":" ","pages":"1-28"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Abortion access barriers shared in \\\"r/abortion\\\" after Roe: a qualitative analysis of Reddit community post-Dobbs decision leak in 2022.\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth Pleasants, Karen Weidert, Lindsay Parham, Emma Anderson, Eliza Dolgins, Coye Cheshire, Cassondra Marshall, Ndola Prata, Ushma Upadhyay\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/26410397.2024.2426921\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>With drastic changes to abortion policy, the months following the Dobbs leak and subsequent decision in 2022 were a uniquely uncertain and difficult time for abortion access in the US. To understand experiences of challenges to abortion access during that time, we used a hybrid inductive and deductive thematic coding approach to analyse descriptions of barriers and their impacts shared in an abortion subreddit (r/abortion). A simple random sample of 10% of posts was obtained from those shared from 02 May 2022 through 23 December 2022; comments were purposively sampled during the coding process. In this sample of submissions (n = 523 posts, 88 comments), people described structural barriers identified in past research, including state abortion bans and gestational limits, high costs, limited appointment availability, and long travel required. Posters also commonly described known social barriers, including limited social support and abortion stigma. Several impactful barriers not well-described in past research emerged inductively, including wait time for receiving mail-ordered abortion medication, low credibility of online ordering platforms, and concerns about legal risks of accessing abortion or related medical care. The most common consequences of experiencing barriers were adverse mental health outcomes, delayed access to care, and being compelled to self-manage their abortion because of access barriers. This analysis provides timely insights into the experiences and impacts of abortion access barriers in a group of people with a range of engagement with clinical abortion care, lived experiences, and points in their abortion processes, with public health implications for mental health and abortion access.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37074,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-28\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/26410397.2024.2426921\",\"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":"Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26410397.2024.2426921","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

随着堕胎政策的急剧变化,多布斯泄密事件发生后的几个月以及随后在 2022 年做出的决定,对美国的堕胎获取而言是一个独特的不确定和困难时期。为了解这一时期堕胎所面临挑战的经历,我们采用了归纳和演绎混合主题编码方法,对堕胎子论坛(r/abortion)中分享的障碍及其影响的描述进行了分析。我们从 2022 年 5 月 2 日至 2022 年 12 月 23 日期间分享的帖子中抽取了 10% 的简单随机样本;在编码过程中对评论进行了有目的的抽样。在这些提交的样本(n = 523 篇帖子,88 条评论)中,人们描述了过去研究中发现的结构性障碍,包括州政府的堕胎禁令和妊娠限制、高昂的费用、有限的预约时间以及所需的长途旅行。发帖者还普遍描述了已知的社会障碍,包括有限的社会支持和堕胎耻辱感。一些在过去的研究中没有很好描述的有影响的障碍在归纳中出现了,包括接收邮购堕胎药物的等待时间、在线订购平台的低可信度以及对获得堕胎或相关医疗护理的法律风险的担忧。遭遇障碍最常见的后果是不良的心理健康后果、获得护理的时间延迟,以及因获得障碍而被迫自我管理堕胎。这项分析为我们提供了及时的洞察力,让我们了解到堕胎过程中不同临床堕胎护理参与度、生活经历和阶段的人群所经历的堕胎障碍及其影响,并对心理健康和堕胎获取产生了公共卫生影响。
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
Abortion access barriers shared in "r/abortion" after Roe: a qualitative analysis of Reddit community post-Dobbs decision leak in 2022.

With drastic changes to abortion policy, the months following the Dobbs leak and subsequent decision in 2022 were a uniquely uncertain and difficult time for abortion access in the US. To understand experiences of challenges to abortion access during that time, we used a hybrid inductive and deductive thematic coding approach to analyse descriptions of barriers and their impacts shared in an abortion subreddit (r/abortion). A simple random sample of 10% of posts was obtained from those shared from 02 May 2022 through 23 December 2022; comments were purposively sampled during the coding process. In this sample of submissions (n = 523 posts, 88 comments), people described structural barriers identified in past research, including state abortion bans and gestational limits, high costs, limited appointment availability, and long travel required. Posters also commonly described known social barriers, including limited social support and abortion stigma. Several impactful barriers not well-described in past research emerged inductively, including wait time for receiving mail-ordered abortion medication, low credibility of online ordering platforms, and concerns about legal risks of accessing abortion or related medical care. The most common consequences of experiencing barriers were adverse mental health outcomes, delayed access to care, and being compelled to self-manage their abortion because of access barriers. This analysis provides timely insights into the experiences and impacts of abortion access barriers in a group of people with a range of engagement with clinical abortion care, lived experiences, and points in their abortion processes, with public health implications for mental health and abortion access.

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
Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters
Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters Medicine-Obstetrics and Gynecology
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
63
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: SRHM is a multidisciplinary journal, welcoming submissions from a wide range of disciplines, including the social sciences and humanities, behavioural science, public health, human rights and law. The journal welcomes a range of methodological approaches, including qualitative and quantitative analyses such as policy analysis; mixed methods approaches to public health and health systems research; economic, political and historical analysis; and epidemiological work with a focus on SRHR. Key topics addressed in SRHM include (but are not limited to) abortion, family planning, contraception, female genital mutilation, HIV and other STIs, human papillomavirus (HPV), maternal health, SRHR in humanitarian settings, gender-based and other forms of interpersonal violence, young people, gender, sexuality, sexual rights and sexual pleasure.
期刊最新文献
What do oral contraceptive pills have to do with human rights abuses in sport? Access to assisted reproductive technologies in sub-Saharan Africa: fertility professionals' views. "First was to sit down and bring our minds together". A qualitative study on safer conception decision-making among HIV sero-different couples in Zimbabwe. Nimble adaptations to sexual and reproductive health service provision to adolescents and young people in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Socio-ecological influences on access to abortion care in Costa Rica: a qualitative analysis of key perspectives from clinical and policy stakeholders.
×
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