理解美国成年人对堕胎可接受性的看法与对罗诉韦德案的支持之间脱节的混合方法。

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law Pub Date : 2023-08-01 DOI:10.1215/03616878-10449896
Beyza E Buyuker, Kathryn J LaRoche, Xiana Bueno, Kristen N Jozkowski, Brandon L Crawford, Ronna C Turner, Wen-Juo Lo
{"title":"理解美国成年人对堕胎可接受性的看法与对罗诉韦德案的支持之间脱节的混合方法。","authors":"Beyza E Buyuker,&nbsp;Kathryn J LaRoche,&nbsp;Xiana Bueno,&nbsp;Kristen N Jozkowski,&nbsp;Brandon L Crawford,&nbsp;Ronna C Turner,&nbsp;Wen-Juo Lo","doi":"10.1215/03616878-10449896","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The relationship between people's attitudes about abortion acceptability and the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade-two distinct but related issues-has not been rigorously explored. The authors used a mixed-methods approach for analyzing in-depth interviews to better understand how participants' feelings toward abortion acceptability are related to perceptions of whether abortion should be legal. The authors then assessed (1) correlations between abortion acceptability and different measures of support for Roe v. Wade, and (2) how the phrasing of survey items related to Roe v. Wade may evoke different responses via an online survey fielded in 2018. The study's qualitative results highlight that there is a disjuncture between people's moral feelings toward abortion and their attitudes toward abortion legality. The study's quantitative results further demonstrate that correlations between abortion acceptability and support for Roe v. Wade are moderate, and the differences in responses to the phrasing of survey items related to Roe v. Wade are moderated by knowledge. The authors recommend that when researchers develop survey items, they avoid ambiguities of abortion as a general construct, especially when public opinion measures on abortion are employed for research and the design of social and health policy and practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":54812,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","volume":"48 4","pages":"649-678"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding the Disconnection between Perceptions of Abortion Acceptability and Support for Roe v. Wade among US Adults.\",\"authors\":\"Beyza E Buyuker,&nbsp;Kathryn J LaRoche,&nbsp;Xiana Bueno,&nbsp;Kristen N Jozkowski,&nbsp;Brandon L Crawford,&nbsp;Ronna C Turner,&nbsp;Wen-Juo Lo\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/03616878-10449896\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The relationship between people's attitudes about abortion acceptability and the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade-two distinct but related issues-has not been rigorously explored. The authors used a mixed-methods approach for analyzing in-depth interviews to better understand how participants' feelings toward abortion acceptability are related to perceptions of whether abortion should be legal. The authors then assessed (1) correlations between abortion acceptability and different measures of support for Roe v. Wade, and (2) how the phrasing of survey items related to Roe v. Wade may evoke different responses via an online survey fielded in 2018. The study's qualitative results highlight that there is a disjuncture between people's moral feelings toward abortion and their attitudes toward abortion legality. The study's quantitative results further demonstrate that correlations between abortion acceptability and support for Roe v. Wade are moderate, and the differences in responses to the phrasing of survey items related to Roe v. Wade are moderated by knowledge. The authors recommend that when researchers develop survey items, they avoid ambiguities of abortion as a general construct, especially when public opinion measures on abortion are employed for research and the design of social and health policy and practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54812,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law\",\"volume\":\"48 4\",\"pages\":\"649-678\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-10449896\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-10449896","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

人们对堕胎可接受性的态度与最高法院在罗诉韦德案中的裁决之间的关系,这两个不同但相关的问题尚未得到严格探讨。作者使用混合方法分析深入访谈,以更好地了解参与者对堕胎可接受性的感受与堕胎是否合法的看法之间的关系。然后,作者评估了(1)堕胎可接受性与支持罗诉韦德案的不同措施之间的相关性,以及(2)通过2018年进行的在线调查,与罗诉韦德案件相关的调查项目的措辞可能会引起不同的反应。这项研究的定性结果强调,人们对堕胎的道德情感和对堕胎合法性的态度之间存在脱节。该研究的定量结果进一步表明,堕胎可接受性和对罗诉韦德案的支持之间的相关性是适度的,对罗诉Wade案相关调查项目措辞的反应差异是由知识调节的。作者建议,当研究人员制定调查项目时,他们应避免将堕胎作为一个一般概念的模糊性,特别是当研究和设计社会和卫生政策与实践时,采用有关堕胎的舆论措施。
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
A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding the Disconnection between Perceptions of Abortion Acceptability and Support for Roe v. Wade among US Adults.

The relationship between people's attitudes about abortion acceptability and the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade-two distinct but related issues-has not been rigorously explored. The authors used a mixed-methods approach for analyzing in-depth interviews to better understand how participants' feelings toward abortion acceptability are related to perceptions of whether abortion should be legal. The authors then assessed (1) correlations between abortion acceptability and different measures of support for Roe v. Wade, and (2) how the phrasing of survey items related to Roe v. Wade may evoke different responses via an online survey fielded in 2018. The study's qualitative results highlight that there is a disjuncture between people's moral feelings toward abortion and their attitudes toward abortion legality. The study's quantitative results further demonstrate that correlations between abortion acceptability and support for Roe v. Wade are moderate, and the differences in responses to the phrasing of survey items related to Roe v. Wade are moderated by knowledge. The authors recommend that when researchers develop survey items, they avoid ambiguities of abortion as a general construct, especially when public opinion measures on abortion are employed for research and the design of social and health policy and practice.

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
7.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
46
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: A leading journal in its field, and the primary source of communication across the many disciplines it serves, the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law focuses on the initiation, formulation, and implementation of health policy and analyzes the relations between government and health—past, present, and future.
期刊最新文献
Explaining Political Differences in Attitudes to Vaccines in France: Partisan Cues, Disenchantment with Politics, and Political Sophistication. Implementing Primary Care Reform in France: Bargaining, Policy Adaptation, and the Maisons de Santé Pluriprofessionnelles. Policy Feedback and the Politics of Childhood Vaccine Mandates: Conflict and Change in California, 2012-2019. Regime Type and Data Manipulation: Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Why Some Nonelderly Adult Medicaid Enrollees Appear Ineligible Based on Their Annual Income.
×
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