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.

Introduction Methods Results Discussion Financial costs remain one of the greatest barriers to abortion, leading to delays in care and preventing some from getting a desired abortion. Medication abortion is available through in‐person facilities and telehealth services. However, whether telehealth offers a more affordable option has not been well‐documented.We used Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH)'s Abortion Facility Database, which includes data on all publicly advertising abortion facilities and is updated annually. We describe facility out‐of‐pocket prices for medication abortion in 2021, 2022, and 2023, comparing in‐person and telehealth provided by brick‐and‐mortar and virtual clinics, and by whether states allowed Medicaid coverage for abortion.The national median price for medication abortion remained consistent at $568 in 2021 and $563 in 2023. However, medications provided by virtual clinics were notably lower in price than in‐person care and this difference widened over time. The median cost of a medication abortion offered in‐person increased from $580 in 2021 to $600 by 2023, while the median price of a medication abortion offered by virtual clinics decreased from $239 in 2021 to $150 in 2023. Among virtual clinics, few (7%) accepted Medicaid. Median prices in states that accept Medicaid were generally higher than in states that did not.Medication abortion is offered at substantially lower prices by virtual clinics. However, not being able to use Medicaid or other insurance may make telehealth cost‐prohibitive for some people, even if prices are lower. Additionally, many states do not allow telehealth for abortion, deepening inequities in healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine changes in availability of procedural abortion, especially in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, since the U.S. Supreme Court ended federal protections for abortion in its Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in 2022., Methods: We used the Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health Abortion Facility Database, a national database of all publicly advertising abortion facilities, to document trends in service availability from 2021 to 2023. We calculated summary statistics to describe facility gestational limits for procedural abortion for the United States and by state, subregion, and region, and we examined the number and proportion of facilities that offer procedural abortion in the second or third trimester of pregnancy., Results: From 2021 to 2023, the total number of publicly advertising facilities providing procedural abortion decreased 11.0%, from 473 to 421. Overall, one-quarter of facilities (n=115) that had been providing procedural abortion in 2021 ceased providing services, and an additional 99 decreased their gestational limits. In contrast, 73 facilities increased their gestational limits, and 64 new facilities began providing or publicly advertising procedural abortion services. The number of facilities offering procedural abortion later in pregnancy decreased (327 to 309 providing 14 weeks of gestation or later, 60 to 50 providing 24 weeks of gestation or later), although the proportion of all facilities providing these services held steady. The greatest changes were in the South, where many facilities closed., Conclusion: There have been substantial reductions in the number and distribution of facilities offering procedural abortion since the Dobbs decision, with critical decreases in the availability of later abortion services. Some facilities are positioning themselves to meet the needs of patients by opening new facilities, publicly advertising their services, or extending their gestational limits., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objective: Pregnancy-specific alcohol policies are widely adopted yet have limited effectiveness and established risks. It is unknown whether general population alcohol policies are effective during pregnancy. This study investigated associations between general population policies and alcohol treatment admission rates for pregnant people specifically., Method: Data are from the Treatment Episodes Data Set: Admissions and state-level policy data for 1992-2019 (n=1,331 state-years). The primary outcome was treatment admissions where alcohol was the primary substance, and the secondary outcome included admissions where alcohol was any substance. There were five policy predictors: 1) Government spirits monopoly, 2) Ban on Sunday sales, 3) Grocery store sales, 4) Gas station sales, and 5) Blood alcohol concentration (BAC) laws. Covariates included poverty, unemployment, per capita cigarette consumption, state and year fixed effects, and state-specific time trends., Results: In models with alcohol as the primary substance, prohibiting spirits sales in grocery stores (vs. allowing heavy beer and spirits) had lower treatment admission rates [ IRR =0.88, 95% CI : 0.78-0.99, p =0.028]. States with BAC laws at 0.10% (vs. no law) had higher treatment admission rates [ IRR =1.24, 95% CI : 1.08-1.43, p =0.003]. When alcohol was any substance, prohibiting spirits sales in grocery stores (vs. allowing heavy beer and spirits) was again associated with lower treatment admission rates [ IRR =0.89, 95% CI : 0.80-0.98, p =0.021], but there was no association for BAC laws., Conclusions: Restrictions on grocery store spirits sales and BAC laws were associated with lower and higher alcohol treatment admission rates among pregnant people, respectively, suggesting general population alcohol policies are relevant for pregnant people's treatment utilization.