Search

BackgroundPublic health agencies in the United States have engaged in abortion-related activities for nearly 50years. 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsMCH 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.ConclusionsAlthough 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.

Author(s): Barr-Walker, Jill; DePineres, Teresa; Ossom-Williamson, Peace; Mengesha, Biftu; Berglas, Nancy F | Abstract: Misinformation about abortion abounds in the United States. This may be due, in part, to laws in 22 states that require health care providers to present medically inaccurate or misleading information to people seeking abortion. Such information can negatively impact both providers and patients, particularly vulnerable populations who already face considerable challenges accessing abortion services. Health sciences librarians are a professional group whose core values prioritize access to evidence-based health information for all people, with the goal of facilitating informed health care decisions. This professional imperative suggests a role for librarians in the provision of evidence-based information around abortion. Drawing on our collective expertise in library science, medicine and public health, we propose that health sciences librarians build partnerships with public health departments and abortion providers to develop authoritative resources, advocate for change through legislative action, and raise public awareness about abortion misinformation.

Author(s): Berglas, Nancy F; Battistelli, Molly F; Nicholson, Wanda K; Sobota, Mindy; Urman, Richard D; Roberts, Sarah CM | Abstract: BackgroundOver 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 findingsWe 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.ConclusionsMore 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.