Roadblocks at every turn: What reproductive health experts say about barriers to legislative abortion advocacy

OBJECTIVES

Advocacy is an important part of the reproductive health care profession, but barriers to participating in the legislative process are not well understood. This study examines the barriers experts in reproductive health experience to testifying at state legislative committee hearings regarding abortion.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with 40 experts in reproductive health, including obstetrician gynecologists (OBGYNs), midwives, pediatricians, nurses, primary care providers, and professional advocates. We analyzed the interview transcripts using an inductive coding process.

RESULTS

We identified four barriers to testifying at state legislative committee hearings regarding abortion. First, our interviewees described a tension between claiming expertise and stigma: those without direct experience in abortion care often felt too unqualified to testify, but representing oneself as an abortion provider came with stigma that made communicating with legislators difficult. Second, issues of power and identity informed interactions in committee chambers, as well as the structure of advocacy work more broadly. Third, institutional constraints shaped what experts could say and whether they could rely on their professional affiliations for support. Finally, fear of harassment and violence kept many of our interviewees from testifying, especially those who were active abortion providers.

CONCLUSIONS

These barriers appear unique to testifying on abortion and represent a complex web of hurdles that experts in reproductive health must navigate to participate in this part of the policymaking process.

IMPLICATIONS

Our findings suggest multiple strategies for improving the state of expert involvement in abortion policymaking, including expanding the pool of testifiers to include nonabortion providers and experts with a range of backgrounds, as well as supporting organizations that link experts to training and advocacy networks.

Health care provider communication: an empirical model of therapeutic effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Patients who are facing life-threatening and life-limiting cancer almost invariably experience psychological distress. Responding effectively requires therapeutic sensitivity and skill. In this study, we examined therapeutic effectiveness within the setting of cancer-related distress with the objective of understanding its constituent parts.

METHODS

Seventy-eight experienced psychosocial oncology clinicians from 24 health care centers across Canada were invited to participate in 3 focus groups each. In total, 29 focus groups were held over 2 years, during which clinicians articulated the therapeutic factors deemed most helpful in mitigating patient psychosocial distress. The content of each focus group was summarized into major themes and was reviewed with participants to confirm their accuracy. Upon completion of the focus groups, workshops were held in various centers, eliciting participant feedback on an empirical model of therapeutic effectiveness based on the qualitative analysis of focus group data.

RESULTS

Three primary, interrelated therapeutic domains emerged from the data, forming a model of optimal therapeutic effectiveness: 1) personal growth and self-care (domain A), 2) therapeutic approaches (domain B), and 3) creation of a safe space (domain C). Areas of domain overlap were identified and labeled accordingly: domain AB, therapeutic humility; domain BC, therapeutic pacing; and domain AC, therapeutic presence.

CONCLUSIONS

This empirical model provides detailed insights regarding the elements and pedagogy of effective communication and psychosocial care for patients who are experiencing cancer-related distress.

On learning from experience: personal and private experiences as the context for psychotherapeutic practice

The central idea in evidence-based practice is that it is the therapy that works and not the therapist. However, this article seeks to show how both our private and personal lives are an area for reflection when we are working as psychotherapists, and that personal and private experience can be an important framework for practising psychotherapy. Through looking at elements of the personal and private lives of three different therapists in the light of a therapy session conducted by each, I will try to demonstrate how personal and private experiences may influence clinical practice. The article builds on an ongoing grounded theory research project at the Tavistock Centre, London.