Search

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.

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.

Attempts to solve the "problem of adolescent pregnancy" have long been a  focus of national, state, and local efforts in the United States. This review article summarizes trends and strategies around adolescent pregnancy prevention, provides lessons learned and best practices, and presents ideas for future directions. Over the past decades, a wide variety of policy and programmatic interventions have been implemented - including educational efforts, clinical health services, and community-wide coalitions - accompanied by a growing consensus regarding viable solutions. While notable reductions in adolescent pregnancy and childbearing have occurred across all sociodemographic groups, racial/ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomic disparities persist. Many adolescents who most need sexual health information and services are underserved by current programs and policies. A growing understanding of the role of social determinants of health, the impacts of structural racism, and the need for equity and inclusion must inform the next set of interventions and societal commitments to not only ameliorate the occurrence of unintended adolescent pregnancy but also foster healthy adolescent development. Recommendations for future efforts include improving the content, quality, and sustainability of education programs; actively engaging youth in the design of policies, programs, and clinical services; using technology thoughtfully to improve health literacy; expanding access to services through telehealth and other delivery options; and designing programs and policies that recognize and address structural racism, health equity, and inclusion.

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

ContextRecent legislation in states across the United States has required governmental health agencies to take on new and different roles in relation to abortion. While there has been media attention to health department roles in regulating abortion providers, there has been no systematic investigation of the range of activities in which state and local health departments are engaged.ObjectiveTo systematically investigate health department activities related to abortion.MethodsWe searched state health department Web sites of the 50 states and District of Columbia using key words such as "abortion" and "pregnancy termination". Two trained coders categorized 6093 documents using the 10 Essential Public Health Services (EPHS) framework. We then applied these methods to 671 local health department documents.SettingState and local health department Web sites.ParticipantsN/A.ResultsOn average, states engaged in 5.1 of 10 Essential Services related to abortion. Most (76%-98%) state health departments engaged in activities to Monitor Health Status (EPHS1), Enforce Laws (EPHS6), and Evaluate Effectiveness, Accessibility, and Quality (EPHS9). Many (47%-69%) engaged in activities to Inform and Educate (EPHS3), Develop Policies (EPHS5), and Link to Services (EPHS7). A minority (4%-29%) engaged in activities to Diagnose and Investigate Health Problems (EPHS2), Mobilize Community Partnerships (EPHS4), and Assure Competent Workforce (EPHS8). No state engaged in Innovative Research (EPHS10). Few local health departments engaged in abortion-related activities.ConclusionsWhile most state health departments engage in abortion-related activities, they appear to reflect what the law requires rather than the range of core public health activities. Additional research is needed to assess whether these services meet quality standards for public health services and determine how best to support governmental health agencies in their growing tasks. These findings raise important questions about the role of public health agencies and professionals in defining how health departments should be engaging with abortion.

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.

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.