Breaking the silence in the primary care office: patients' attitudes toward discussing abortion during contraceptive counseling

Contraceptive Risk Events among Family Planning Specialists: a Cross Sectional Study

Background

Proponents of abortion restriction cite advancements in contraceptive technology as a reason against the need for abortion care today, most recently through oral arguments in the Supreme Court of the United States case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. However, consistent and correct use of contraception requires reproductive health literacy. Our objectives were to quantify contraceptive risk events and assess contraceptive history and preferences among a population well-equipped to evade contraceptive risks, family planning specialists following initiation of their medical training. "Risk events" are defined as reported episodes of contraceptive failure, emergency contraception use and/or unprotected or underprotected intercourse.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study among current members of a professional organization of family planning specialists. Inclusion criteria included: status as a current or retired clinician, consensual penile-vaginal intercourse since the start of medical training, and personal or partner capacity to become pregnant. Descriptive statistics were performed. This study was IRB exempt.

Results

Among 229 respondents, 157 (69%) reported experiencing a contraceptive risk event since training. Twenty-nine (13%) respondents reported an occurrence within the last year. By category, 47% (108/229; 3 reported unknown) reported under- or unprotected intercourse, 35% (81/229) reported emergency contraception use, and 52% of participants (117/227; 2 unknown) reported known or suspected contraceptive failure. The mean number of contraceptive methods used was 3.7 (SD 1.7) out of the 13 methods listed. Almost all (97%) participants reported at least one method was not an acceptable option, with a mean of 5.6 (SD 2.7) of the 13 listed methods.

Conclusions

The majority of family planning specialists have experienced contraceptive risk events during times of active pregnancy prevention since their medical training. Contraceptive method change is common and most respondents were limited in the number of methods that were personally acceptable to them. Dialogue idealizing the role of contraception in minimizing or eliminating abortion need is simplistic and inaccurately represents the lived realities of pregnancy-capable individuals and their partners, including among those with exceptional contraceptive literacy and access.

Racial disparities in pregnancy options counseling and referral in the US South

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to examine racial variation in receipt of counseling and referral for pregnancy options (abortion, adoption, and parenting) following pregnancy confirmation. Equitable offering of such information is a professional and ethical obligation and an opportunity to prevent racial disparities in maternal and child health.

DATA SOURCE

Primary data from patients at southern United States publicly funded family planning clinics, October 2018-June 2019.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients at 14 clinics completed a survey about their experiences with pregnancy options counseling and referral following a positive pregnancy test. The primary predictor variable was patients' self-reported racial identity. Outcomes included discussion of pregnancy options, referral for those options, and for support services.

DATA COLLECTION

Data from eligible patients with non-missing information for key variables (n = 313) were analyzed using descriptive statistics, χ² tests, and multivariable logistic regression.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Patients were largely Black (58%), uninsured (64%), and 18-29 years of age (80%). Intention to continue pregnancy and receipt of prenatal care referral did not differ significantly among Black as compared to non-Black patients. However, Black patients had a higher likelihood of wanting an abortion or adoption referral and not receiving one (abortion: marginal effect [ME] = 7.68%, p = 0.037; adjusted ME [aME] = 9.02%, p = 0.015; adoption: ME = 7.06%, p = 0.031; aME = 8.42%, p = 0.011). Black patients intending to end their pregnancies had a lower probability of receiving an abortion referral than non-Black patients (ME = -22.37%, p = 0.004; aME = -19.69%, p = 0.023). In the fully adjusted model, Black patients also had a higher probability of wanting access to care resources (including transportation, childcare, and financial support) and not receiving them (aME = 5.38%, p = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical interactions surrounding pregnancy confirmation provide critical opportunities to discuss options, coordinate care, and mitigate risk, yet are susceptible to systemic bias. These findings add to limited evidence around pregnancy counseling and referral disparities. Ongoing assessment of pregnancy counseling and referral disparities can provide insight into organizational strengths or the potential to increase structural equity.

Critiquing the Unintended Pregnancy Framework

The unintended pregnancy framework, a central tenet of sexual and reproductive health care delivery and research, has been depicted as an adverse outcome that should be prevented. There is growing criticism of the inadequacies of this framework, although little modification in public health guidelines, measurement, or clinical practice has been seen. This article critically reviews the literature on unintended pregnancy to encourage reflection on how this framework has negatively influenced practice and to inspire the advancement of more patient-centered care approaches. We begin by outlining the historical origins of the unintended pregnancy framework and review how this framework mischaracterizes patients' lived experiences, fails to account for structural inequities, contributes to stigma, and is built upon weakly supported claims of a negative impact on health outcomes. We close with a discussion of the relationship between health care provision and unintended pregnancy care and the implications and recommendations for realigning clinical practice, research, and policy goals.

Abortion Knowledge Among Advanced Practice Clinicians in Colorado

INTRODUCTION

Our objective was to quantify abortion law and care knowledge among Colorado advanced practice clinicians.

METHODS

We conducted a stratified random survey of advanced practice clinicians, oversampling women's health and rural clinicians. We assessed sample characteristics, positions on abortion legality, and knowledge of abortion law and care. Mean knowledge scores were compared by sample characteristics. Survey responses were compared by provision of pregnancy options counseling and positions on abortion legality. Linear regression models were used to examine knowledge scores.

RESULTS

A total of 513 participants completed the survey; the response rate was 21%. Abortion law knowledge questions (mean score, 1.7/7.0) ranged from 12% (physician-only law) to 45% (parental consent law) correct. For five of seven questions, "I don't know" was the most frequently chosen response. Abortion care knowledge questions (mean score, 2.8/8.0) ranged from 19% (abortion prevalence) to 60% (no elevated risk of breast cancer) correct. For four of eight questions, "I don't know" was the most frequently chosen response. Practicing in all other areas (e.g., family practice) was associated with lower abortion law and care knowledge than practicing in women's health. Providing options counseling was positively associated with abortion knowledge (law, β = 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10-0.78; care, β = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.08-0.95). Compared with participants who believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances, those who believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances had similar abortion law knowledge (β = -0.03; 95% CI, -0.65 to 0.59), but lower abortion care knowledge (β = -1.85; 95% CI, -2.34 to -1.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Abortion knowledge is low among Colorado advanced practice clinicians and education is needed.

What are the informational barriers and facilitators to abortion care? Patient journey analysis of abortion access under new services in the Republic of Ireland

Background

Information flow – information communication and transmission pathways and practices within healthcare systems – impacts patient journeys. Historically, regulating information flow was a key technology of reproductive governance in the Republic of Ireland. Pre-2018, law and the State sustained informational barriers to and through abortion care in Ireland. An expanded abortion service was implemented in January 2019.

Method

Patient Journey Analysis (PJA) interrogates informational facilitators and barriers to/through post-2019 abortion care in Ireland. We focus on information flow at the interfaces between the ‘public’ sphere and ‘point of entry’, ‘point of entry’ and primary care, and primary and secondary care.

Materials

The paper uses data from a mixed-method study. A tool for assessing online abortion service information (ASIAT), desktop research, and qualitative data from 108 in-depth interviews with providers, policy-makers, advocacy groups, and service users informed the analysis.

Results

Abortion patient journeys vary. Information flow issues, e.g. communication of how to access services, referral systems, and information handover, act as barriers and facilitators. Barriers increase where movement from primary to secondary is needed.

Applications

The article identifies good practice in information flow strategy, as well as areas for development. It illustrates the significance of information flow in accomplishing reproductive governance.

•

Information flow facilitating abortion access was restricted in Ireland under pre-2018 legislation.

•

Information flow can now act as a barrier and facilitator to patient journeys to abortion care.

•

The ‘informational barriers/facilitators’ vary as the patient journey progresses.

•

Pro-active promotion and targeting disinformation address informational barriers at ‘point of entry’.

•

Referral mechanisms and information handover systems can cause delays as patient journeys progress.