"I wouldn't even know where to start": unwanted pregnancy and abortion decision-making in Central Appalachia

Integrating Sexual and Reproductive Health Equity Into Public Health Goals and Metrics: Comparative Analysis of Healthy People 2030's Approach and a Person-Centered Approach to Contraceptive Access Using Population-Based Data

BACKGROUND

The Healthy People initiative is a national effort to lay out public health goals in the United States every decade. In its latest iteration, Healthy People 2030, key goals related to contraception focus on increasing the use of effective birth control (contraceptive methods classified as most or moderately effective for pregnancy prevention) among women at risk of unintended pregnancy. This narrow focus is misaligned with sexual and reproductive health equity, which recognizes that individuals' self-defined contraceptive needs are critical for monitoring contraceptive access and designing policy and programmatic strategies to increase access.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare 2 population-level metrics of contraceptive access: a conventional metric, use of contraceptive methods considered most or moderately effective for pregnancy prevention among those considered at risk of unintended pregnancy (approximating the Healthy People 2030 approach), and a person-centered metric, use of preferred contraceptive method among current and prospective contraceptive users.

METHODS

We used nationally representative data collected in 2022 to construct the 2 metrics of contraceptive access; the overall sample included individuals assigned female at birth not using female sterilization or otherwise infecund and who were not pregnant or trying to become pregnant (unweighted N=2760; population estimate: 43.9 million). We conducted a comparative analysis to examine the convergence and divergence of the metrics by examining whether individuals met the inclusion criteria for the denominators of both metrics, neither metric, only the conventional metric, or only the person-centered metric.

RESULTS

Comparing the 2 approaches to measuring contraceptive access, we found that 79% of respondents were either included in or excluded from both metrics (reflecting that the metrics converged when individuals were treated the same by both). The remaining 21% represented divergence in the metrics, with an estimated 5.7 million individuals who did not want to use contraception included only in the conventional metric denominator and an estimated 3.5 million individuals who were using or wanted to use contraception but had never had penile-vaginal sex included only in the person-centered metric denominator. Among those included only in the conventional metric, 100% were content nonusers-individuals who were not using contraception, nor did they want to. Among those included only in the person-centered metric, 68% were currently using contraception. Despite their current or desired contraceptive use, these individuals were excluded from the conventional metric because they had never had penile-vaginal sex.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis highlights that a frequently used metric of contraceptive access misses the needs of millions of people by simultaneously including content nonusers and excluding those who are using or want to use contraception who have never had sex. Documenting and quantifying the gap between current approaches to assessing contraceptive access and more person-centered ones helps clearly identify where programmatic and policy efforts should focus going forward.

Seeking financial and practical support in an abortion-hostile state: Analysis of abortion fund data in Kentucky, 2014-2021: Analysis of abortion fund data in Kentucky

OBJECTIVES

Philanthropic abortion funds are integral to accessing care in the United States, providing both financial and practical assistance. Yet relatively little is known about those who seek these essential services. In this study, we analyzed data from a Kentucky abortion fund to assess characteristics of abortion fund callers.

METHODS

We analyzed 2014-2021 administrative data from the Kentucky Health Justice Network's (KHJN) Abortion Support Fund and compared them to abortion data from the Kentucky Department for Public Health (KDPH). We analyzed age, race, and pregnancy gestation at calling (KHJN) and abortion (KDPH), and calculated Z-scores and p-values to compare proportions in each category between the two data sources.

RESULTS

The fund supported 6162 people from 2014 to 2021, when 28,741 people had abortions in Kentucky. Compared with KDPH data, KHJN had a higher percentage of callers who were under age 30, a higher percentage of callers who were Black or another race, and a higher percentage of callers at 14 weeks' gestation or higher.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with state data, KHJN supported a higher percentage of young people, people of color, and people at later gestations. These findings support evidence that structurally vulnerable groups are more likely to face barriers to care and that abortion funds provide essential support necessary for reproductive equity.

The Impact of Rural Environments on Reproductive Autonomy Among Women in Appalachia: A Qualitative Analysis

Reproductive autonomy encompasses one's ability to make decisions around contraceptive use, pregnancy, and childbirth. An individual's geographic location affects access to a wide range of information and care related to reproductive choice. Individuals in rural areas face additional barriers to reproductive health and decision-making than those in urban areas. This phenomenological qualitative study examined the experiences with and perceptions of reproductive decision-making among women in rural Appalachian communities in the United States. Four themes emerged from the data: autonomy tied to choice, role of religion and church on autonomy and decision-making, navigating limited access to care, and shame. Women should be supported in making reproductive health decisions, and efforts are needed to increase autonomy within reproductive health care and decisions. Sexual health programming within school and other community settings should address shame that often occurs around reproductive health topics, particularly among religious communities.

Sampling strategies among studies of barriers to abortion in the United States: A scoping review of abortion access research

OBJECTIVES

Understanding barriers to abortion care is particularly important post-Dobbs. However, many abortion access studies recruit from abortion-providing facilities, which overlook individuals who do not present for clinic-based care. To our knowledge, no studies have reviewed research recruitment strategies in the literature or considered how they might affect our knowledge of abortion barriers. We aimed to identify populations included and sampling methods used in studies of abortion barriers in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

We used a scoping review protocol to search five databases for articles examining US-based individuals' experiences accessing abortion. We included English-language articles published between January 2011 and February 2022. For included studies, we identified the sampling strategy and population recruited.

RESULTS

Our search produced 2763 articles, of which 71 met inclusion criteria. Half of the included papers recruited participants at abortion-providing facilities (n = 35), while the remainder recruited from online sources (n = 14), other health clinics (n = 10), professional organizations (n = 8), abortion funds (n = 2), community organizations (n = 2), key informants (n = 2), and an abortion storytelling project (n = 1). Most articles (n = 61) reported information from people discussing their own abortions; the rest asked nonabortion seekers (e.g., physicians, genetic counselors, attorneys) about barriers to care.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies of abortion barriers enroll participants from a range of venues, but the majority recruit people who obtained abortions, and half recruit from abortion clinics.

IMPLICATIONS

As abortion access becomes constrained and criminalized in the post-Roe context, our findings indicate how investigators might recruit study participants from a variety of settings to fully understand the abortion seeking experience.

Abortion patients' decision making about where to obtain out-of-state care following Texas' 2021 abortion ban

OBJECTIVE

To assess pregnant Texans' decisions about where to obtain out-of-state abortion care following the September 2021 implementation of Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which prohibited abortions after detectable embryonic cardiac activity.

DATA SOURCE

In-depth telephone interviews with Texas residents ≥15 years of age who obtained out-of-state abortion care after SB8's implementation.

STUDY DESIGN

This qualitative study explored participants' experiences identifying and contacting abortion facilities and their concerns and considerations about traveling out of state. We used inductive and deductive codes in our thematic analysis describing people's decisions about where to obtain care and how they evaluated available options.

DATA COLLECTION

Texas residents self-referred to the study from flyers we provided to abortion facilities in Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. We also enrolled participants from a concurrent online survey of Texans seeking abortion care.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Participants (n = 65) frequently obtained referral lists for out-of-state locations from health-care providers, and a few received referrals to specific facilities; however, referrals rarely included the information people needed to decide where to obtain care. More than half of the participants prioritized getting the soonest appointment and often contacted multiple locations and traveled further to do so; others who could not travel further typically waited longer for an appointment. Although the participants rarely cited state abortion restrictions or cost of care as their main reason for choosing a location, they often made sacrifices to lessen the logistical and economic hardships that state restrictions and out-of-state travel costs created. Informative abortion facility websites and compassionate scheduling staff solidified some participants' facility choice.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant Texans made difficult trade-offs and experienced travel-related burdens to obtain out-of-state abortion care. As abortion bans prohibit more people from obtaining in-state care, efforts to strengthen patient navigation are needed to reduce care-seeking burdens as this will support people's reproductive autonomy.

Factors affecting unintended pregnancy resolution from the perspectives of pregnant women and people: A systematic review of qualitative evidence

BACKGROUND

Unintended pregnancy is a global issue with significant consequences for individuals and society. It impacts maternal and neonatal health, educational attainment, and interpersonal relationships. The decision-making process surrounding unintended pregnancies is complex, influenced by factors like ambivalence, societal norms, and maternal responsibilities. Understanding pregnant women and people's experiences is crucial to providing support and addressing barriers to access. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to consolidate and synthesize qualitative evidence regarding individual's experiences and the factors influencing their decision-making in unintended pregnancies.

METHOD(S)

Ten databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO (Ovid), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection and Social Science Database (ProQuest), MedNar and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global) were systematically searched for published and unpublished primary qualitative studies from their inception to December 2022. Relevant qualitative data were extracted and meta-summarized using Sandelowski and Barroso's approach and analyzed using Thomas and Harden's thematic analysis framework.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Four themes were identified from the meta-synthesis: 1) Navigating the head and heart, 2) Involvement and influence of others, 3) Hindrance and help in decision-making, and 4) Growing and gaining.

CONCLUSION

This review emphasized the significance of both internal and external factors in shaping pregnant women and people's experiences, and influencing their choices when faced with unintended pregnancies. Recognizing and addressing the multifaceted nature of these decisions; is crucial for different stakeholders such as healthcare professionals, and policymakers to better support pregnant women and people, and promote their well-being. This review sets the stage for future research and practice, emphasizing the ongoing need to empower pregnant women and people, ensure accessible and safe reproductive healthcare services, and promote informed decision-making.

Mistreatment in health care among women in Appalachia

Good quality patient care requires health care providers to respect the humanity and autonomy of their patients. However, this is not achieved in all settings. This study used cross-sectional survey data including open-ended text responses to explore negative experiences with health care providers among women in Appalachia. We used the Heath Stigma & Discrimination Framework (HSDF) to identify how stigma is created and perpetuated through interactions with health care providers. Survey data from 628 women collected through purposive sampling identified that two out of three participants had had a bad encounter with a provider that made them not want to return for care. One in six participants had a negative experience specifically while seeking contraception. Using the domains of the HSDF framework, qualitative answers to open-ended questions illuminated how health care providers, influenced by social and cultural norms related to religiosity, patriarchal views, poverty, poor health infrastructure, and the opioid crisis, created and perpetuated stigma through dehumanising treatment, low-quality care, and health care misogyny. Because stigma is a driver of health inequity, these findings highlight the important and sometimes problematic role that health care providers can play when they create a barrier to future care through poor treatment of patients.

"Have you ever wanted or needed an abortion you did not get?" Data from a 2022 nationally representative online survey in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Describe the prevalence of considering, wanting, and not obtaining a wanted abortion among a nationally representative sample of 15-44 year olds in the United States who had ever been pregnant.

STUDY DESIGN

We analyzed data from ever-pregnant respondents (unweighted n = 1789) from a larger online survey about contraceptive access using the nationally representative AmeriSpeak panel. Among those not obtaining wanted abortions, weighted frequencies for sociodemographic characteristics and reasons for not getting the abortion are presented.

RESULTS

Nearly 6% of the full sample reported having wanted an abortion they did not obtain. In open-ended responses, respondents most frequently reported individual reasons (43.8%) for not getting an abortion (e.g., changing their mind; personal opposition) and financial, logistical, or informational barriers (24.7%) likely related to policy. A quarter (24.1%) of the sample reported a past abortion. Among those who reported no past abortions, about one-fifth had considered abortion in the past, and 6.8% had wanted or needed one. Among those reporting no prior abortions who had considered abortion, only a third (34.3%) also report ever wanting or needing one.

CONCLUSIONS

This study begins to quantify the experience, even before the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, of being unable to obtain a wanted abortion. Additionally, findings suggest that people in a national sample will answer questions about whether and why they did not obtain a wanted abortion.

IMPLICATIONS

This study provides the first known national estimates of lifetime history of not getting a wanted abortion. Survey questions can be used for future research. Prospective and ongoing measurement of the inability to get a wanted abortion could be one part of documenting the effects of Dobbs on abortion access.

Perceived Access to Contraception via Telemedicine Among Young Adults: Inequities by Food and Housing Insecurity

BACKGROUND

Telemedicine expanded rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic, including for contraceptive services. Data are needed to understand whether young people can access telemedicine for contraception, especially in underserved populations.

OBJECTIVE

To compare young people's perceived access to telemedicine visits for contraception during the COVID-19 pandemic by food and housing insecurity.

DESIGN

Supplementary study to a cluster randomized controlled trial in 25 community colleges in California and Texas. Online surveys were administered May 2020 to April 2021. Mixed-effects logistic regression models with random effects for site were used to examine differences in access to contraception through telemedicine by food and housing insecurity status, controlling for key sociodemographic characteristics, including race/ethnicity, non-English primary language, health insurance status, and state of residence, and contraceptive method used.

PARTICIPANTS

1,414 individuals assigned female at birth aged 18-28.

MAIN MEASURES

Survey measures were used to capture how difficult it would be for a participant to have a telemedicine visit (phone or video) for contraception.

KEY RESULTS

Twenty-nine percent of participants were food insecure, and 15% were housing insecure. Nearly a quarter (24%) stated that it would be difficult to have a phone or video visit for contraception. After accounting for sociodemographic factors and type of method used, food insecure (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.62-2.91) and housing insecure (aOR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.13-2.33) participants were significantly more likely to report that it would be difficult to use telemedicine for contraception during the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

Underserved patients are those who could benefit most from the expansion of telemedicine services, yet our findings show that young people experiencing basic needs insecurity perceive the greatest difficulty accessing these services for essential reproductive care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03519685.

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.

Telemedicine to improve reproductive health care for rural Coloradans: Perceptions of interest and access

PURPOSE

To evaluate rural Colorado women's access to and preferences for receiving reproductive health care services.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey of women ages 18-45 years old. We mailed recruitment postcards to a random sample of female, registered voters in rural Colorado zip codes. Survey questions assessed experiences, beliefs, and preferences regarding reproductive health care. We performed bivariate statistics and logistic regression for predictors of interest in telemedicine.

FINDINGS

Respondents (n = 478) had a median age of 34 years (range 18-45). Most women identified as White (90.2%) and were insured (67.1% private; 20.5% public). Most (74.1%) noted barriers to obtaining reproductive care in their communities. Those who reported barriers cited a median of 3 barriers (range 1-8), most commonly too few community-based providers (81.4%) and long distance to care (69.5%). Among respondents, 51.0% had used telemedicine before and 52.5% were interested in using telemedicine for reproductive health services. Interest in telemedicine significantly differed by perceived difficulty accessing care, previous telemedicine use, traveling over 100 miles for medical care in the last year, and belief in the safety of abortion. Those interested in telemedicine were less likely to value having an established relationship with providers and face-to-face visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Most reproductive-aged, rural Colorado women endorsed barriers to obtaining reproductive health care in their communities. Over half of rural women are interested in using telemedicine for reproductive health care; however, many are not. Both optimizing telemedicine and developing additional innovative solutions are needed to improve access to reproductive care in rural communities.

"They're forcing people to have children that they can't afford": a qualitative study of social support and capital among individuals receiving an abortion in Georgia

Abortion is common but highly stigmatized in the United States, and the overturning of Roe v. Wade severely restricted abortion access in many states across the nation. Data reveal that maternal morbidity and mortality are already increasing, and research suggests existing inequities in abortion access across racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups will be exacerbated. Research has shown that social support (perceived and received aid from one's social network) and social capital (resources accessed through those social connections) can improve access to health services and decrease barriers to care. Given the escalating barriers to abortion, including longer travel distances, it is imperative to better understand the roles of social support and social capital within abortion access, especially for people living on lower incomes and people of color. Our team conducted in-depth interviews with post-abortion patients (n = 18) from an urban abortion clinic in Georgia in 2019 and 2020, shortly after a six-week gestational age abortion limit had been passed but before it was enacted. We examined how people described their social support and social capital - or lack thereof - when making decisions about their pregnancy and their ability to access abortion. We found that social support and social capital - economic support in particular - were key facilitators of both abortion access and parenting, but participants often experienced barriers to economic support within their social networks due to poverty, unstable partnerships, structural inequality, and abortion stigma. Women experienced constraints to their reproductive autonomy, wherein they had no alternatives but abortion. Our findings suggest that increased economic support and de-stigmatization of abortion are needed to improve reproductive autonomy. Our findings also indicate that restricting and outlawing abortion services is significantly detrimental to the well-being of pregnant people, their families and networks, and their communities by perpetuating cycles of poverty and deepening socioeconomic and racial/ethnic inequities.

Selecting an Abortion Clinic: The Role of Social Myths and Risk Perception in Seeking Abortion Care

Recent shifts in the abortion provision landscape have generated increased concern about how people find abortion care as regulations make abortion less accessible and clinics close. Few studies examine the reasons that people select particular facilities in such constrained contexts. Drawing from interviews with 41 Ohio residents, we find that people's clinic selections are influenced by the risks they associate with abortion care. Participants' strategies for selecting an abortion clinic included: drawing on previous experience with clinics, consulting others online, discerning reputation through name recognition and clinic type, and considering location, especially perceptions about place (privacy, legality, safety). We argue that social myths inform the risks people anticipate when seeking health care facilities, shaping care seeking in ways that are both abortion-specific and more general. These findings can also inform research in other health care contexts where patients increasingly find their options constrained by rising costs, consolidation, and facility closure.

Real-Time Effects of Payer Restrictions on Reproductive Healthcare: A Qualitative Analysis of Cost-Related Barriers and Their Consequences among U.S. Abortion Seekers on Reddit

Objective: The Hyde Amendment and related policies limit or prohibit Medicaid coverage of abortion services in the United States. Most research on cost-related abortion barriers relies on clinic-based samples, but people who desire abortions may never make it to a healthcare center. To examine a novel, pre-abortion population, we analyzed a unique qualitative dataset of posts from Reddit, a widely used social media platform increasingly leveraged by researchers, to assess financial obstacles among anonymous posters considering abortion. Methods: In February 2020, we used Python to web-scrape the 250 most recent posts that mentioned abortion, removing all identifying information and usernames. After transferring all posts into NVivo, a qualitative software package, the team identified all datapoints related to cost. Three qualitatively trained evaluators established and applied codes, reaching saturation after 194 posts. The research team used a descriptive qualitative approach, using both inductive and deductive elements, to identify and analyze themes related to financial barriers. Results: We documented multiple cost-related deterrents, including lack of funds for both the procedure and attendant travel costs, inability to afford desired abortion modality (i.e., medication or surgical), and for some, consideration of self-managed abortion options due to cost barriers. Conclusions: Findings from this study underscore the centrality of cost barriers and third-party payer restrictions to stymying reproductive health access in the United States. Results may contribute to the growing evidence base and building political momentum focused on repealing the Hyde Amendment.

Pregnancy outcomes after exposure to crisis pregnancy centers among an abortion-seeking sample recruited online

INTRODUCTION

More than 2,500 crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), which seek to convince people considering abortion to continue their pregnancies, exist in the United States. However, the characteristics of people who visit CPCs and their pregnancy outcomes are largely unknown. This study sought to describe the characteristics of people considering abortion who report visiting CPCs, and whether CPC visit is associated with abortion or continuing the pregnancy 4 weeks later.

METHODS

Between August 2017 to May 2018, we recruited pregnant people searching for abortion services online, and 857 participants completed baseline and 4-week follow-up surveys. We described characteristics associated with visiting a CPC and compared pregnancy and abortion outcomes for those who reported CPC visit to those who did not using mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Overall, 13.1% of respondents visited a confirmed CPC. Living further away from a CPC was associated with lower odds of a CPC visit. At follow-up, respondents who had visited a CPC were significantly less likely to have had an abortion (29.5%) than those who had not visited a CPC (50.5%). In the adjusted models, respondents who had visited a CPC had higher odds of being pregnant and still seeking abortion (aOR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.37-3.73) or continuing the pregnancy (aOR: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.33-4.15) (versus having had an abortion), than those who had not visited a CPC.

CONCLUSIONS

CPCs may be providing resources to people who are considering continuing their pregnancy and/or they may be misleading people about the care and referrals they provide related to abortion. Pregnant people need access to accurate information, decision support, and resources to make the pregnancy or abortion decision that is best for them.

Access to and sustainability of abortion services: a systematic review and meta-analysis for the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence-new clinical guidelines for England

BACKGROUND

Induced abortion is a common procedure. However, there is marked variation in accessibility of services across England. Accessing abortion services may be difficult, particularly for women who live in remote areas, are in the second trimester of pregnancy, have complex pre-existing conditions or have difficult social circumstances.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

This article presents a two-part review undertaken for a new National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guideline on abortion care, and aiming to determine: the factors that help or hinder accessibility and sustainability of abortion services in England (qualitative review), and strategies that improve these factors, and/or other factors identified by stakeholders (quantitative review). Economic modelling was undertaken to estimate cost savings associated with reducing waiting times.

SEARCH METHODS

Ovid Embase Classic and Embase, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid MEDLINE(R), PsycINFO, Cochrane Library via Wiley Online, Cinahl Plus and Web of Science Core Collection were searched for articles published up to November 2018. Studies were included if they were published in English after 2001, conducted in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries and were: qualitative studies reporting views of patients and/or staff on factors that help or hinder the accessibility and sustainability of a safe abortion service, or randomized or non-randomized studies that compared strategies to improve factors identified by the qualitative review and/or stakeholders. Studies were excluded if they were conducted in OECD countries where abortion is prohibited altogether or only performed to save the woman's life. One author assessed risk of bias of included studies using the following checklists: Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for qualitative studies, Cochrane Collaboration quality checklist for randomized controlled trials, Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies, and Effective Practice and Organization of Care risk of bias tool for before-and-after studies.Qualitative evidence was combined using thematic analysis and overall quality of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual). Quantitative evidence was analysed in Review Manager 5.3 and overall quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

OUTCOMES

Eight themes (service level barriers; financial barriers; logistical barriers; personal barriers; legal and policy barriers; privacy and confidentiality concerns; training and education; community prescribing and telemedicine introduce greater flexibility) and 18 subthemes were identified from 23 papers (n = 1016) included in the qualitative review. The quality of evidence ranged from very low to high, with evidence for one theme and seven subthemes rated as high quality. Nine studies (n = 7061) were included in the quantitative review which showed that satisfaction was better (low to high quality evidence) and women were seen sooner (very low quality evidence) when care was led by nurses or midwives compared with physician-led services, women were seen sooner when they could self-refer (very low quality evidence), and clinicians were more likely to provide abortions if training used an opt-out model (very low quality evidence). Economic modelling showed that even small reductions in waiting times could result in large cost savings for services.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Self-referral, funding for travel and accommodation, reducing waiting times, remote assessment, community services, maximizing the role of nurses and midwives and including practical experience of performing abortion in core curriculums, unless the trainee opts out, should improve access to and sustainability of abortion services.

State abortion policies and Medicaid coverage of abortion are associated with pregnancy outcomes among individuals seeking abortion recruited using Google Ads: A national cohort study

OBJECTIVE

A major challenge to understanding barriers to abortion is that those individuals most affected may never reach an abortion provider, making the full impact of restrictive policies difficult to measure. The Google Ads Abortion Access Study used a novel method to recruit individuals much earlier in the abortion-seeking process. We aimed to understand how state-level abortion policies and Medicaid coverage of abortion influence individuals' ability to obtain wanted abortions.

METHODS

We employed a stratified sampling design to recruit a national cohort from all 50 states searching Google for abortion care. Participants completed online baseline and 4-week follow-up surveys. The primary independent variables were: 1) state policy environment and 2) state coverage of abortion for people with Medicaid. We developed multivariable multinomial mixed effects models to estimate the associations between each state-level independent variable and pregnancy outcome.

RESULTS

Of the 874 participants with follow-up data, 48% had had an abortion, 32% were still seeking an abortion, and 20% were planning to continue their pregnancies at 4 weeks follow-up. Individuals in restricted access states had significantly higher odds of planning to continue the pregnancy at follow-up than participants in protected access states (aOR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.08, 2.70). Individuals in states that do not provide coverage of abortion for people with Medicaid had significantly higher odds of still seeking an abortion at follow-up (aOR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.24, 2.60). Individuals living in states without Medicaid coverage were significantly more likely to report that having to gather money to pay for travel expenses or for the abortion was a barrier to care.

CONCLUSIONS

Restrictive state-level abortion policies are associated with not having an abortion at all and lack of coverage for abortion is associated with prolonged abortion seeking. Medicaid coverage of abortion appears critical to ensuring that all people who want abortions can obtain them.

Certainty and intention in pregnancy decision-making: An exploratory study

OBJECTIVE

Abortion is often characterized as an inherently difficult decision, despite research demonstrating high decision certainty among abortion patients. Minimal research has examined decision certainty among people planning to continue a pregnancy. We examined whether women seeking abortion experience lower decision certainty than those planning to continue pregnancies and whether certainty differs by pregnancy intendedness.

STUDY DESIGN

We administered the decisional conflict scale (DCS) to pregnant women (n = 149) at 8 U.S. primary and reproductive health clinics. Using Poisson regression models adjusted for sociodemographic and pregnancy characteristics, we evaluated differences in DCS scores (<25/100 vs ≥25/100) by pregnancy decision and whether pregnancy intention modified the effect of pregnancy decision on certainty.

RESULTS

Over one-half (58%) of respondents planned to have an abortion, 32% to continue the pregnancy, and 10% were unsure. DCS scores were low overall (median 9.4/100; IQR: 1.6, 25.0), indicative of high certainty, and the percentage scoring ≥25/100, reflecting any uncertainty, did not differ by pregnancy decision (23% abortion vs 19% continuing, p = 0.55). In a multivariable model, there was no statistically significant interaction between pregnancy decision (abortion vs continuing pregnancy) and intention. However, the predicted percentage reporting any uncertainty among respondents with intended pregnancies was comparable among those decided on abortion (13%) and continuing the pregnancy (16%). Among those with unintended pregnancies, these figures were 25% among those decided on abortion vs 36% among those continuing.

CONCLUSION

Levels of certainty about a pregnancy decision were high and appeared to depend more on whether the pregnancy was intended or unintended than on the pregnancy decision itself.

IMPLICATIONS

Similar levels of uncertainty among individuals who decided to have an abortion versus continue a pregnancy challenge the narrative that abortion is a particularly difficult medical and personal decision. The prevalence of some uncertainty among respondents continuing pregnancies suggests voluntary options counseling may be useful for some patients in prenatal care settings.

Abortion care pathways and service provision for adolescents in high-income countries: A qualitative synthesis of the evidence

Limited research in high-income countries (HICs) examines adolescent abortion care-seeking pathways. This review aims to examine the pathways and experiences of adolescents when seeking abortion care, and service delivery processes in provision of such care. We undertook a systematic search of the literature to identify relevant studies in HICs (2000–2020). A directed content analysis of qualitative and quantitative studies was conducted. Findings were organised to one or more of three domains of an a priori conceptual framework: context, components of abortion care and access pathway. Thirty-five studies were included. Themes classified to the Context domain included adolescent-specific and restrictive abortion legislation, mostly focused on the United States. Components of abortion care themes included confidentiality, comprehensive care, and abortion procedure. Access pathway themes included delays to access, abortion procedure information, decision-making, clinic operation and environments, and financial and transportation barriers. This review highlights issues affecting access to abortion that are particularly salient for adolescents, including additional legal barriers and challenges receiving care due to their age. Opportunities to enhance abortion access include removing legal barriers, provision of comprehensive care, enhancing the quality of information, and harnessing innovative delivery approaches offered by medical abortion.

Perceived Access to Abortion Among Women in the United States in 2018: Variation by State Abortion Policy Context

Objectives. To describe perceptions of access to abortion among women of reproductive age and their associations with state abortion policy contexts.Methods. We used data from the 2018 Survey of Family Planning and Women's Lives, a probability-based sample of 2115 adult women aged 18 to 44 years in US households.Results. We found that 27.6% of women (95% confidence interval [CI] = 23.3%, 32.7%) believed that access to medical abortion was difficult and 30.1% of women (95% CI = 25.6%, 35.1%) believed that access to surgical abortion was difficult. Adjusted for covariates, women were significantly more likely to perceive access to both surgical and medical abortions as difficult when they lived in states with 4 or more restrictive abortion policies compared with states with fewer restrictions (surgical adjusted odds ratio [AOR_surgical] = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.15, 2.21; AOR_medical = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.04, 1.95). Specific restrictive abortion policies (e.g., public funding restrictions, mandatory counseling or waiting periods, and targeted regulation of abortion providers) were also associated with greater perceived difficulty accessing both surgical and medical abortions.Conclusions. State policies restricting abortion access are associated with perceptions of reduced access to both medical and surgical abortions among women of reproductive age.

Shining the light on abortion: Drivers of online abortion searches across the United States in 2018

Context

Legal abortion restrictions, stigma and fear can inhibit people’s voices in clinical and social settings posing barriers to decision-making and abortion care. The internet allows individuals to make informed decisions privately. We explored what state-level policy dimensions were associated with volume of Google searches on abortion and on the abortion pill in 2018.

Methods

We used Google Trends to quantify the relative search volume (RSV) for “abortion” and “abortion pill” (or “abortion pills” hereafter referred to as “abortion pill”) as a proportion of total search volume for all queries in each US state. We also identified the top search queries most related to “abortion” and “abortion pill” and considered these as indicators of population concern. Key exposures were healthcare cost, access and health outcomes, and number of legal restrictions and protections at the state level. In descriptive analyses, we first grouped the states into tertiles according to their RSV on “abortion” and “abortion pill”. To examine the association between each exposure (and other covariates) with the two outcomes, we used unadjusted and adjusted linear regression.

Results

The average RSV for “abortion” in the low, moderate and high tertile groups was 48 (SD = 3.25), 55.5 (SD = 2.11) and 64 (SD = 4.72) (p-value <0.01) respectively; for “abortion pill” the average RSVs were 39.6 (SD = 16.68), 61.9 (SD = 5.82) and 81.7 (SD = 6.67) (p-value < 0.01) respectively. Concerns about contraceptive availability and access, and unplanned pregnancies independently predicted the relative search volumes for abortion and abortion pill. According to our baseline models, states with low contraceptive access had far higher abortion searches. Volume of abortion pill searches was additionally positively associated with poor health outcomes, poor access to abortion facilities and non-rurality.

Conclusion

Search traffic analysis can help discern abortion-policy influences on population concerns and require close monitoring. State-policies can predict search volume for abortion and abortion pill. In 2018, concerns about contraceptives and unplanned pregnancies, predicted abortion searches. Current decreases in public contraceptive funding and the Title X Gag rule designed to block millions of people from getting care at Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of birth control and abortion care, may increase concerns about unintended pregnancies that can lead to increases in online relative volume of abortion searches.