Search

Ongoing education on sexual health and other health promotion topics is critical as young people transition into adulthood. A booster round of education may be an effective strategy to reinforce information previously taught and expand to additional topics relevant later in adolescence. In partnership with a Youth Advisory Council, we co-designed READY, Set, Go!, a booster curriculum for older adolescents with modules covering adult preparation skills, sexual identity, relationships, reproductive health, and mental health. From November 2021 to January 2023, we provided the curriculum to 21 cohorts of 12th grade students (N = 433) in rural communities of Fresno County, CA, and conducted an implementation evaluation to assess its feasibility in school settings, acceptability by participants, and changes in short-term outcomes. Health educators completed implementation logs to track program adaptations. Youth completed pretest/posttest surveys to assess changes in outcomes and participant satisfaction. We used descriptive statistics to examine program adaptations and satisfaction. We used multivariable regression models to examine changes in outcomes, adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics. Health educators completed most activities as planned, with adaptations occurring in response to youth needs and scheduling limitations. Sexual health knowledge, confidence in adult preparation skills, awareness of local sexual and mental health services, and willingness to seek health services all increased significantly from pretest to posttest. Youth feedback was strongly positive. We conclude that booster sexual health education is a promising strategy to address critical knowledge gaps and support health promotion, especially in rural and other under-resourced communities.

ObjectivesPrior research identified a significant decline in the number of abortions in Louisiana at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as increases in second-trimester abortions and decreases in medication abortions. This study examines how service disruptions in particular areas of the state disparately affected access to abortion care based on geography.Study designWe collected monthly service data from Louisiana's abortion clinics (January 2018-May 2020) and conducted mystery client calls to determine whether clinics were scheduling appointments at pandemic onset (April-May 2020). We used segmented regression to assess whether service disruptions modified the main pandemic effects on the number, timing, and type of abortions using stratified models and interaction terms. Additionally, we calculated the median distance that Louisiana residents traveled to the clinic where they obtained care.ResultsFor residents whose closest clinic was consistently scheduling appointments at the onset of the pandemic, the number of monthly abortions did not change (IRR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.84-1.36). For those whose closest clinic services were disrupted, the number of monthly abortions decreased by 46% (IRR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.45-0.65). Similarly, increases in second-trimester abortions and decreases in medication abortions were concentrated in areas where residents experienced service disruptions (AOR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.21-4.56 and AOR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.29-0.87, respectively) and were not seen elsewhere in the state.ConclusionChanges in the number, timing and type of abortions were concentrated among residents in particular areas of Louisiana. The early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated geographic disparities in access to abortion care.ImplicationsDisruptions in services at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in Louisiana meaningfully affected pregnant people's ability to obtain an abortion at their nearest clinic. These findings reinforce the importance of developing mechanisms to support pregnant people during emergency situations when traveling to a nearby clinic is no longer possible.

Study objectiveTo understand the diverse reasons why some young women choose contraceptive methods that are less effective at preventing pregnancy, including condoms, withdrawal, and emergency contraception pills, even when more effective contraceptive methods are made available to them.DesignIn-depth interviews with young women at family planning clinics in July-November 2016. Interview data were thematically coded and analyzed using an iterative approach.SettingTwo youth-serving family planning clinics serving predominantly Latinx and African American communities in the San Francisco Bay Area, California.ParticipantsTwenty-two young women ages 15-25 years who recently accessed emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy.InterventionsNone.Main outcome measuresYoung women's experiences using different methods of contraception, with specific attention to methods that are less effective at preventing pregnancy.ResultsYoung women reported having previously used a range of higher- and lower-efficacy contraceptive methods. In interviews, they described affirmative values that drive their decision to use lower-efficacy methods, including: a preference for flexibility and spontaneity over continual contraceptive use, an emphasis on protecting one's body, and satisfaction with the method's effectiveness at preventing pregnancy. Some young women described using a combination of lower-efficacy methods to reduce their pregnancy risk.ConclusionYoung women make contraceptive decisions on the basis of preferences and values that include, but are not limited to, effectiveness at preventing pregnancy. These reasons are salient in their lives and need to be recognized as valid by sexual health care providers to ensure that young women receive ongoing high-quality care.

BackgroundPublic 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.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.

BackgroundPublic 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.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.

ContextPrevious research finds that some state policies regarding alcohol use during pregnancy (alcohol/pregnancy policies) increase low birth weight (LBW) and preterm birth (PTB), decrease prenatal care utilization, and have inconclusive relationships with alcohol use during pregnancy.ObjectiveThis research examines whether effects of 8 alcohol/pregnancy policies vary by education status, hypothesizing that health benefits of policies will be concentrated among women with more education and health harms will be concentrated among women with less education.MethodsThis study uses 1972-2015 Vital Statistics data, 1985-2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data, policy data from National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's Alcohol Policy Information System and original legal research, and state-level control variables. Analyses include multivariable logistic regressions with education-policy interaction terms as main predictors.ResultsThe impact of alcohol/pregnancy policies varied by education status for PTB and LBW for all policies, for prenatal care use for some policies, and generally did not vary for alcohol use for any policy. Hypotheses were not supported. Five policies had adverse effects on PTB and LBW for high school graduates. Six policies had adverse effects on PTB and LBW for women with more than high school education. In contrast, 2 policies had beneficial effects on PTB and/or LBW for women with less than high school education. For prenatal care, patterns were generally similar, with adverse effects concentrated among women with more education and beneficial effects among women with less education. Although associations between policies and alcohol use during pregnancy varied by education, there was no clear pattern.ConclusionsEffects of alcohol/pregnancy policies on birth outcomes and prenatal care use vary by education status, with women with more education typically experiencing health harms and women with less education either not experiencing the harms or experiencing health benefits. New policy approaches that reduce harms related to alcohol use during pregnancy are needed. Public health professionals should take the lead on identifying and developing policy approaches that reduce harms related to alcohol use during pregnancy.

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.

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.

PurposeStates have enacted an increasing number of policies restricting access to abortion. As a result, some women are unable to obtain an abortion and instead continue their pregnancies. These women may have particular needs that would bring them to the attention of public health programs.MethodsPregnant women entering prenatal care completed a self-administered survey and structured interview at four prenatal facilities in Louisiana and Maryland (N = 586). Participants reported their pregnancy intentions, whether they had considered abortion, and their reasons for not having an abortion (e.g., personal reasons, policy barriers to care). Participants completed up to 13 items indicating their service needs; an index was created by summing across nine common items. Data were analyzed through descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses, and multivariable regression models that controlled for sociodemographic characteristics.ResultsOn average, women reported 2.99 service needs. The most common needs were WIC (93%), food stamps (85%), dental care (59%), and housing assistance (53%). In multivariable analyses, women who considered abortion but did not face a policy barrier reported greater service needs compared to women who did not consider abortion (3.45 vs. 2.82; b = 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-1.04). Women reporting a policy barrier to abortion reported the highest service needs (3.95) of all groups, although differences were not statistically significant possibly owing to sample size.ConclusionsPregnant women who consider abortion before entering prenatal care have considerable health and social service needs. Public health programs that serve women and children should consider the specific needs of women who seek abortions.

PurposeStates have enacted an increasing number of policies restricting access to abortion. As a result, some women are unable to obtain an abortion and instead continue their pregnancies. These women may have particular needs that would bring them to the attention of public health programs.MethodsPregnant women entering prenatal care completed a self-administered survey and structured interview at four prenatal facilities in Louisiana and Maryland (N = 586). Participants reported their pregnancy intentions, whether they had considered abortion, and their reasons for not having an abortion (e.g., personal reasons, policy barriers to care). Participants completed up to 13 items indicating their service needs; an index was created by summing across nine common items. Data were analyzed through descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses, and multivariable regression models that controlled for sociodemographic characteristics.ResultsOn average, women reported 2.99 service needs. The most common needs were WIC (93%), food stamps (85%), dental care (59%), and housing assistance (53%). In multivariable analyses, women who considered abortion but did not face a policy barrier reported greater service needs compared to women who did not consider abortion (3.45 vs. 2.82; b = 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-1.04). Women reporting a policy barrier to abortion reported the highest service needs (3.95) of all groups, although differences were not statistically significant possibly owing to sample size.ConclusionsPregnant women who consider abortion before entering prenatal care have considerable health and social service needs. Public health programs that serve women and children should consider the specific needs of women who seek abortions.

BackgroundIn 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsIf 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.

BackgroundProfessional 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.MethodsAt 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.ResultsAt 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

BackgroundProfessional 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.MethodsAt 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.ResultsAt 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

BackgroundIn 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsIf 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.

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 protect women'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 an abortion in the state and county 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.

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 protect women'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 an abortion in the state and county 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.

PurposeThe extent that state-mandated informed consent scripts affect women's knowledge about abortion is unknown. We examine women's endorsement of common abortion myths before and after receiving state-mandated information that included accurate and inaccurate statements about abortion.MethodsIn Utah, women presenting for an abortion information visit completed baseline surveys (n = 494) and follow-up interviews 3 weeks later (n = 309). Women answered five items about abortion risks, indicating which of two statements was closer to the truth (as established by prior research) or responding "don't know." We developed a continuous myth endorsement scale (range, 0-1) and, using multivariable regression models, examined predictors of myth endorsement at baseline and change in myth endorsement from baseline to follow-up.ResultsAt baseline, many women reported not knowing about abortion risks (range, 36%-70% across myths). Women who were younger, non-White, and had previously given birth but not had a prior abortion reported higher myth endorsement at baseline. Overall, myth endorsement decreased after the information visit (0.37-0.31; p

PurposeThe extent that state-mandated informed consent scripts affect women's knowledge about abortion is unknown. We examine women's endorsement of common abortion myths before and after receiving state-mandated information that included accurate and inaccurate statements about abortion.MethodsIn Utah, women presenting for an abortion information visit completed baseline surveys (n = 494) and follow-up interviews 3 weeks later (n = 309). Women answered five items about abortion risks, indicating which of two statements was closer to the truth (as established by prior research) or responding "don't know." We developed a continuous myth endorsement scale (range, 0-1) and, using multivariable regression models, examined predictors of myth endorsement at baseline and change in myth endorsement from baseline to follow-up.ResultsAt baseline, many women reported not knowing about abortion risks (range, 36%-70% across myths). Women who were younger, non-White, and had previously given birth but not had a prior abortion reported higher myth endorsement at baseline. Overall, myth endorsement decreased after the information visit (0.37-0.31; p