Search

Research examining the extent that people's attitudes toward abortion vary across the life course is mixed. Some studies do not show a strong relationship between abortion attitudes and life stage, while others do find strong associations in both directions—older age associated with both more and less favorable attitudes toward legal abortion. Taken together, these findings suggest that individual attitudes toward abortion are static for some but malleable for others. Little is known about the prevalence, reasons, and directionality of attitude changes. This explanatory sequential mixed methods study investigates people's perceptions of whether, how, why, and for whom their abortion attitudes may have changed over their life course. We qualitatively investigated the reasons (e.g., experiences, life events) that triggered changes in respondents' abortion attitudes and quantitatively explored the sociodemographic factors associated with the perceived direction of those changes. The quantitative data come from a 2020 online survey completed by 1501 English and Spanish-speaking adults in the US. Qualitative data were collected from a subsample (n = 24) of the survey respondents who indicated interest in a follow-up in-depth interview. Our findings indicate that access to information and knowledge played an important role in changing abortion attitudes across a spectrum of support or opposition. For those who indicated becoming more opposed to abortion over time, experiencing parenthood was an important trigger for change and family/religious upbringing were key to shaping attitudes. For those who became more supportive of abortion over time, empathy for women was an important trigger for change and disagreeing with or distancing oneself from family/religious upbringing were key to shaping their attitudes. If attitudinal change occurs, becoming more supportive of abortion over the life-course is more common than becoming more opposed, however there are some nuances across age and gender. Understanding the different factors that influence attitudinal change regarding abortion has important implications for public opinion research and possible ramifications for abortion legality. • Over time, more people indicated becoming more supportive of abortion than opposed. • The probability of becoming more supportive of abortion is higher for younger men. • The probability of becoming more supportive of abortion is higher for older women. • Parenthood is a driver of change for people who became more opposed to abortion. • Empathy for women is a driver of change for people who became more supportive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Prior research suggests there is a link between child maltreatment and out of home care and both adult crime and juvenile delinquency. Using a bevy of administrative data, this article investigates potential risk and protective factors of youth (n = 1420) who aged out of foster care without legal permanency in a southwestern state. Findings show that common correlates of crime such as gender, previous delinquency, mental illness and placement instability while in care significantly increase the odds of having a felony adjudication and criminal involvement. Results also suggest that the odds of a felony adjudication are lower among youth who access education training vouchers. This article contributes to previous research through its use of administrative data to support previous findings and by highlighting the negative influence of excessive placements while in care. Highlights • The odds of a felony adjudication differ across gender for youth who have aged out of foster care. • Juvenile delinquency significantly increases the odds of a felony adjudication. • A felony adjudication is more likely among individuals receiving mental health or substance abuse services. • Placement instability increases the likelihood of a felony adjudication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examined people's (1) attitudes about abortion using an item from Pew Research Center (i.e., whether abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases) and (2) support for different punishments if abortion were illegal in all cases for different people involved in the abortion–the pregnant person, their partner, an informant and the healthcare provider. We administered a web-based survey to 2,204 U.S. adults using quota-based sampling. Post-stratification weights were applied to the data so that the sample was comparable to U.S. benchmarks for gender, race, Hispanic ethnicity, age, education, and political affiliation. We compared endorsement of various punishments for a pregnant person, their partner, informant, and healthcare provider. Additionally, we compared the endorsement of these punishments across response options of Pew's abortion legality item. Overall, most of our sample indicated that abortion should be legal in most (34%) or legal in all scenarios (21%). However, if abortion were illegal in all circumstances, most of our sample supported some form of punishment for the pregnant person (72%−75%), their partner (65%−68%), and healthcare providers (70%−71%), but not informants (47%−49%). Among the endorsed punishments, therapy/education typically received the most support. Because of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision and the subsequent overturning of Roe v. Wade , abortion is illegal in a significant number of states and a punishable offense. Our findings suggest that current punishments associated with many of these laws are counter to public sentiment. Despite majority support for some punishment, the categories of "no punishment" or therapy/education had the most support. Given the lack of plurality or majority support for fines or incarceration, abortion laws including these punishments, including bounty-style laws passed in Texas and Oklahoma, may be out of step with public opinion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Criminal justice research frequently investigates relationships between punishment decisions and demographic characteristics of the accused, such as gender, race, and age. While there are many similarities between criminal justice and child welfare cases, research on child maltreatment has yet to examine potential demographic influences on case outcomes. The current study examines relationships between parent gender, type of maltreatment, and child removal among agency responses to child maltreatment cases. Using data collected by the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), we identify differences in the likelihood of child removal from the parental home across type of maltreatment and perpetrator gender. Our results indicate that mother perpetrators of physical abuse not only face significantly higher likelihood of removal than mother perpetrators of neglect, but are more at risk for losing their children than father perpetrators of both physical abuse and neglect. Findings suggest that gendered attributions and stereotypes regarding parenting can shape assessments of parents' blameworthiness, dangerousness, and rehabilitative potential. We propose that future research on child maltreatment cases adapt and apply justice concepts and frameworks to uncover potential unwarranted demographic disparities in agency decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: We explored public opinion about using telemedicine to provide medication abortion during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. We also investigated the associations between socio-demographic characteristics and support for using telemedicine in this context and explored factors that influenced respondents' attitudes on the topic.Study Design: In a nationally representative, web-based survey of US adults (n = 711), we asked open- and closed-ended questions about using telemedicine to prescribe medication abortion during COVID-19. We used multinomial logistic regression to assess the relationship between socio-demographic characteristics, endorsement of abortion labels, and political affiliation and support for telemedicine in this circumstance. Then, we conducted content and thematic analyses with the open-ended data to explore what influenced respondents' opinions.Results: Overall, 332 (44%) of respondents supported using telemedicine for medication abortion during the pandemic; 237 (35%) opposed and 138 (21%) were unsure. Respondents who identified as prochoice were more likely to support using telemedicine for abortion during the pandemic than those who identified as prolife were to oppose it in this context (RRR 2.95; 95% CI 1.31-6.64). Via our content and thematic analysis, we identified that concerns about safety, the legitimacy of telemedicine, and the belief that abortion should occur as early in the pregnancy as possible influenced respondents' beliefs about using telemedicine for medication abortion.Conclusions: More respondents supported using telemedicine for medication abortion during COVID-19 than opposed it. Among respondents who expressed support, most thought that medication abortion was safe and that telemedicine was equivalent to the in-person provision of care.Implications: There appears to be support among US adults for the provision of medication abortion via telemedicine during COVID-19. Policymakers may consider public sentiment as well as clinical evidence when considering legislation about abortion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of web-based surveys for collecting self-report data is convenient for businesses and researchers, however their use can reduce the likelihood of population representativeness and increase the risk for poor data quality. Evaluation of data quality has resulted in different proportions of participant subgroups being flagged, however these differences are not consistent across studies and survey topics. Setting aside participants identified as having low quality data (LQD) can impact sample characteristics when some subgroups are reduced at higher rates than others. In this study, the incidence of LQD is compared across demographic subgroups for four data collections measuring attitudes about social issues and consumer satisfaction. Younger participants are more frequently identified as having LQD using multiple indicators and survey topics. Conversely, participants identifying as having Black or African American race/ethnicity are consistently flagged for LQD at a higher rate for one survey topic, but not the other, indicating some LQD indicators may be oversensitive to subgroups with construct complexity. To reduce underrepresentation in samples and associated analyses when subgroups have been found to exhibit higher LQD, we recommend oversampling. When LQD for a subgroup shows evidence of being construct-dependent, we recommend LQD indicators unrelated to content response patterns. • Younger online survey participants exhibit low quality data at higher rates. • Younger online survey participants are more likely to fail attention checks. • High rates of low quality data for minorities may relate to construct ambivalence. • Education level and income are not consistent indicators of low data quality levels. • Oversampling of some subgroups may be needed for sufficient analytical samples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multilanguage surveys are a vital component of comparative public health science. And, with dozens of tools available to guide the translation and design process, an open dialogue about key translation frameworks and design approaches and their strengths and limitations is needed. Herein, we briefly summarize the application and use of several popular translation frameworks and questionnaire design approaches. Our purpose is to draw attention to the complexities of multilanguage surveys by noting how the most appropriate framework or approach is entirely dependent on the context of a specific study. We conclude with a call encouraging the adoption of frameworks and approaches that value high degrees of cultural input, ideally among a large team of culture, language, and subject matter experts. And, as the implemented translation framework or questionnaire design approach may hold implications for the quality and validity of data, we also call on editors to create recommendations that encourage disclosure of the translation framework(s) and/or questionnaire design approaches guiding multilanguage surveys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The understanding of subsurface events that cannot be directly observed is dependent on the ability to relate surface-based observations to subsurface processes. This is particularly important for nuclear explosion monitoring, as any future clandestine tests will likely be underground. We collected ground-based lidar and optical imagery using remote, very-low-altitude unmanned aerial system platforms, before and after several underground high explosive experiments. For the lidar collections, we used a terrestrial lidar scanner to obtain high-resolution point clouds and create digital elevation models (DEMs). For the imagery collections, we used structure-from-motion photogrammetry techniques and a dense grid of surveyed ground control points to create high-resolution DEMs. Comparisons between the pre- and post-experiment DEMs indicate changes in surface topography that vary between explosive experiments with varying yield and depth parameters. Our work shows that the relationship between explosive yield and the extent of observable surface change differs from the standard scaled-depth-of-burial model. This suggests that the surface morphological change from underground high explosive experiments can help constrain the experiments' yield and depth, and may impact how such activities are monitored and verified. • Photogrammetry and lidar can record surface change from deeply buried explosions. • The observed pattern of surface change differs from conventional scaling. • The stress field controls surface damage more than number of pre-existing fractures. • Yield and depth may be obtainable from high-resolution surface change measurements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]