Search

Aims We examined relationships between pregnancy-specific alcohol policies and admissions to substance use disorder treatment for pregnant people in the USA. Methods We merged state-level policy and treatment admissions data for 1992–2019. We aggregated data by state-year to examine effects of nine pregnancy-specific alcohol policies on the number of admissions of pregnant women where alcohol was reported as the primary, secondary, or tertiary substance related to the treatment episode (N  = 1331). We fit Poisson models that included all policy variables, state-level controls, fixed effects for state and year, state-specific time trends, and an offset variable of the number of pregnancies in the state-year to account for differences in population size and fertility. Results When alcohol was reported as the primary substance, civil commitment [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.45, 95% CI: 1.10–1.89] and reporting requirements for assessment and treatment purposes [IRR 1.36, 95% CI: 1.04–1.77] were associated with greater treatment admissions. Findings for alcohol as primary, secondary, or tertiary substance were similar for civil commitment [IRR 1.31, 95% CI: 1.08–1.59] and reporting requirements for assessment and treatment purposes [IRR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.00–1.47], although mandatory warning signs [IRR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.72–0.98] and priority treatment for pregnant women [IRR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.78–0.99] were associated with fewer treatment admissions. Priority treatment findings were not robust in sensitivity analyses. No other policies were associated with treatment admissions. Conclusions Pregnancy-specific alcohol policies related to greater treatment admissions tend to mandate treatment rather than make voluntary treatment more accessible, raising questions of ethics and effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial on the value of medical librarianship in the issue of abortion is presented. The authors discuss the problem of misinformation and limited access to information regarding abortion, ways medical librarians can work with public heath departments to provide information, advocacy efforts, and public awareness, and how these actions can impact abortion attitudes.

Objectives. To examine changes in abortions in Louisiana before and after the COVID-19 pandemic onset and assess whether variations in abortion service availability during this time might explain observed changes. Methods. We collected monthly service data from abortion clinics in Louisiana and neighboring states among Louisiana residents (January 2018‒May 2020) and assessed changes in abortions following pandemic onset. We conducted mystery client calls to 30 abortion clinics in Louisiana and neighboring states (April‒July 2020) and examined the percentage of open and scheduling clinics and median waits. Results. The number of abortions per month among Louisiana residents in Louisiana clinics decreased 31% (incidence rate ratio = 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.59, 0.79) from before to after pandemic onset, while the odds of having a second-trimester abortion increased (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.91; 95% CI = 1.10, 3.33). The decrease was not offset by an increase in out-of-state abortions. In Louisiana, only 1 or 2 (of 3) clinics were open (with a median wait > 2 weeks) through early May. Conclusions. The COVID-19 pandemic onset was associated with a significant decrease in the number of abortions and increase in the proportion of abortions provided in the second trimester among Louisiana residents. These changes followed service disruptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examine characteristics and experiences of women who considered, but did not have, an abortion for this pregnancy. Participants were recruited at prenatal care clinics in Louisiana and Maryland for a mixed-methods study (N = 589). On self-administered surveys and structured interviews, participants were asked if they had considered abortion for this pregnancy and, if so, reasons they did not obtain one. A subset (n = 83), including participants who considered abortion for this pregnancy, completed in-depth phone interviews. Multivariable logistic regression analyses examined characteristics associated with having considered abortion and experiencing a policy-related barrier to having an abortion; analyses focused on economic insecurity and of mental health/substance use as main predictors of interest. Louisiana interviews (n = 43) were analyzed using modified grounded theory to understand concrete experiences of policy-related factors. In regression analyses, women who reported greater economic insecurity (aOR 1.21 [95% CI 1.17, 1.26]) and more mental health diagnoses/substance use (aOR 1.29 [1.16, 1.45] had higher odds of having considered abortion. Those who reported greater economic insecurity (aOR 1.50 [1.09, 2.08]) and more mental health diagnoses/substance use (aOR 1.45 [95% CI 1.03, 2.05] had higher odds of reporting policy-related barriers. Interviewees who considered abortion and were subject to multiple restrictions on abortion identified material and instrumental impacts of policies that, collectively, contributed to them not having an abortion. Many described simultaneously navigating economic insecurity, mental health disorders, substance use, and interpersonal opposition to abortion from family and the man involved in the pregnancy. Current restrictive abortion policies appear to have more of an impact on women who report greater economic insecurity and more mental health diagnoses/substance use. These policies work in concert with each other, with people's individual complex situations–including economic insecurity, mental health, and substance use–and with anti-abortion attitudes of other people to make abortion care impossible for some pregnant women to access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over recent decades, numerous medical procedures have migrated out of hospitals and into freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) and physician offices, with possible implications for patient outcomes. In response, states have passed regulations for office-based surgeries, private organizations have established standards for facility accreditation, and professional associations have developed clinical guidelines. While abortions have been performed in office setting for decades, states have also enacted laws requiring that facilities that perform abortions meet specific requirements. The extent to which facility requirements have an impact on patient outcomes—for any procedure—is unclear. Methods and findings: We conducted a systematic review to examine the effect of outpatient facility type (ASC vs. office) and specific facility characteristics (e.g., facility accreditation, emergency response protocols, clinician qualifications, physical plant characteristics, other policies) on patient safety, patient experience and service availability in non-hospital-affiliated outpatient settings. To identify relevant research, we searched databases of the published academic literature (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science) and websites of governmental and non-governmental organizations. Two investigators reviewed 3049 abstracts and full-text articles against inclusion/exclusion criteria and assessed the quality of 22 identified articles. Most studies were hampered by methodological challenges, with 12 of 22 not meeting minimum quality criteria. Of 10 studies included in the review, most (6) examined the effect of facility type on patient safety. Existing research appears to indicate no difference in patient safety for outpatient procedures performed in ASCs vs. physician offices. Research about specific facility characteristics is insufficient to draw conclusions. Conclusions: More and higher quality research is needed to determine if there is a public health problem to be addressed through facility regulation and, if so, which facility characteristics may result in consistent improvements to patient safety while not adversely affecting patient experience or service availability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the United States, groups advocating for and against abortion rights often deploy public health arguments to advance their positions. Recently, these arguments have evolved into state laws that use the government health department infrastructure to increase law enforcement and regulatory activities around abortion. Many major medical and public health associations oppose these new laws because they are not evidence-based and do not protectwomen’s health.Yet state health departments have been defending these laws in court. We propose a 21st-century public health approach to abortion based in an accepted public health framework. Specifically,we apply the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 10 Essential Public Health Services framework to abortion to describe how health departments should engage with abortion. With this public health framework as our guide, we argue that health departments should be facilitating women’s ability to obtain anabortion in the stateandcounty where they reside, researching barriers to abortion care in their states and counties, and promoting the use of a scientific evidence base in abortion-related laws, policies, regulations, and implementation of essential services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through considerable efforts and investments of resources, adolescent pregnancy and birth rates in the United States have decreased significantly over the past two decades. Nonetheless, large disparities persist for many populations of youth. Reducing unintended adolescent pregnancies is considered a "winnable public health battle," but one that will require innovative thinking and continued persistence. This paper reviews the recent research literature and innovative programmatic efforts to identify six promising strategies that address the challenge of adolescent pregnancy in new ways. These strategies aim to: (1) understand and address the complexity of adolescent lives; (2) expand the provision of quality sexual health education; (3) engage youth through technology and media; (4) increase access to contraceptives and other sexual health services; (5) create tailored interventions for populations with special needs; and (6) create a supportive policy environment. By building upon lessons learned from past efforts, we can move the field toward the development, strengthening, and promotion of future strategies that enhance the sexual well-being of all adolescents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An emerging model for sexuality education is the rights-based approach, which unifies discussions of sexuality, gender norms, and sexual rights to promote the healthy sexual development of adolescents. A rigorous evaluation of a rights-based intervention for a broad population of adolescents in the U.S. has not previously been published. This paper evaluates the immediate effects of the Sexuality Education Initiative (SEI) on hypothesized psychosocial determinants of sexual behavior. Methods: A cluster-randomized trial was conducted with ninth-grade students at 10 high schools in Los Angeles. Classrooms at each school were randomized to receive either a rights-based curriculum or basic sex education (control) curriculum. Surveys were completed by 1,750 students (N = 934 intervention, N = 816 control) at pretest and immediate posttest. Multilevel regression models examined the short-term effects of the intervention on nine psychosocial outcomes, which were hypothesized to be mediators of students' sexual behaviors. Results: Compared with students who received the control curriculum, students receiving the rights-based curriculum demonstrated significantly greater knowledge about sexual health and sexual health services, more positive attitudes about sexual relationship rights, greater communication about sex and relationships with parents, and greater self-efficacy to manage risky situations at immediate posttest. There were no significant differences between the two groups for two outcomes, communication with sexual partners and intentions to use condoms. Conclusions: Participation in the rights-based classroom curriculum resulted in positive, statistically significant effects on seven of nine psychosocial outcomes, relative to a basic sex education curriculum. Longer-term effects on students' sexual behaviors will be tested in subsequent analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Public health agencies in the United States have engaged in abortion-related activities for nearly 50 years. Prior research indicates that, while most state health departments engage in some abortion-related work, their efforts reflect what is required by law rather than the breadth of core public health activities. In contrast, local health departments appear to engage in abortion-related activities less often but, when they do, initiate a broader range of activities.Methods: This study aimed to: 1) describe the abortion-related activities undertaken by maternal and child health (MCH) and family planning professionals in state and local health departments; 2) understand how health departments approach their programmatic work on abortion, and 3) examine the facilitators and barriers to whether and how abortion work is implemented. Between November 2017 and June 2018, we conducted key informant interviews with 29 professionals working in 22 state and local health departments across the U.S. Interview data were thematically coded and analyzed using an iterative approach.Results: MCH and family planning professionals described a range of abortion-related activities undertaken within their health departments. We identified three approaches to this work: those mandated strictly by law or policy; those initiated when mandated by law but informed by public health principles (e.g., scientific accuracy, expert engagement, lack of bias, promoting access to care) in implementation; and those initiated by professionals within the department to meet identified needs. More state health departments engaged in activities when mandated, and more local health departments initiated activities based on identified needs. Key barriers and facilitators included political climate, funding opportunities and restrictions, and departmental leadership.Conclusions: Although state health departments are tasked with implementing legally-required abortion-related activities, some agencies bring public health principles to their mandated work. Efforts are needed to engage public health professionals in developing and implementing best practices around engaging in abortion-related activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Professional guidelines indicate that pregnancy options counseling should be offered to pregnant women, in particular those experiencing an unintended pregnancy. However, research on whether pregnancy options counseling would benefit women as they enter prenatal care is limited. This study examines which women might benefit from options counseling during early prenatal care and whether women are interested in receiving counseling from their prenatal care provider.Methods: At four prenatal care facilities in Louisiana and Maryland, women entering prenatal care completed a self-administered survey and brief structured interview (N = 586). Data were analyzed through descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses, multivariate multinomial logistic regression, and coding of open-ended responses.Results: At entry into prenatal care, most women reported that they planned to continue their pregnancy and raise the child. A subset (3%) scored as having low certainty about their decision on the validated Decision Conflict Scale, indicating need for counseling. In addition, 9% of women stated that they would be interested in discussing their pregnancy options with their prenatal care provider. Regression analyses indicated some sociodemographic differences among women who are in need of or interested in options counseling. Notably, women who reported food insecurity in the prior year were found to be significantly more likely to be in need of options counseling (RRR = 3.20, p < 0.001) and interested in options counseling (RRR = 5.48, p < 0.001) than those who were food secure. Most women were open to discussing with their provider if their pregnancy was planned (88%) or if they had considered abortion (81%). More than 95% stated they would be honest with their provider if asked about these topics.Conclusions: Most women are certain of their decision to continue their pregnancy at the initiation of prenatal care. However, there is a subset of women who, despite entering prenatal care, are uncertain of their decision and wish to discuss their options with their health care provider. Screening tools and/or probing questions are needed to support prenatal care providers in identifying these women and ensuring unbiased, non-directive counseling on all pregnancy options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In recent years, an increasing number of states have enacted laws that impose specific requirements for facilities in which abortions are performed. In this study, we sought to understand the processes used to develop facility standards in the context of other, less politically charged areas of health care and consider implications for the context of abortion.Methods: We conducted key informant interviews with 20 clinicians and accreditation professionals involved in facility standards development for common outpatient procedures (endoscopy, gynecology, oral surgery, plastic surgery). We examined the motivations for and processes used in facility standards development, use of scientific evidence in standards development, and decision-making in the absence of evidence. Interview data were thematically coded and analyzed using an iterative approach.Results: In contrast to U.S. state laws that target abortion facilities, standards for other outpatient procedures are commonly set by committees of clinicians organized by professional associations or accreditation organizations. These committees seek to establish standards that ensure patient safety without placing unnecessary burden on clinicians in practice. They aim to create evidence-based standards but can be hampered by lack of relevant research. In the absence of research evidence, committees rely on their clinical expertise and sense of best practices in decision-making. According to respondents, considerations of potential harm (e.g., deeper levels of sedation, invasiveness), rather than the specific procedure, should prompt additional requirements.Conclusions: If facility standards in the context of abortion were developed through processes similar to other outpatient procedures, 1) professionals who perform the procedure would be involved in standards development and 2) in the absence of clear research evidence, the expertise of clinicians, and the guidelines and standards of other organizations, are used to describe a best practice standard of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]