Search

Background: Policies regarding alcohol use during pregnancy continue to be enacted and debated in the United States. However, no study to date has examined whether these policies are related to birth outcomes--the outcomes they ultimately aim to improve. Here, we assessed whether state-level policies targeting alcohol use during pregnancy are related to birth outcomes, which has not been done comprehensively before. Methods: The study involved secondary analyses of birth certificate data from 148,048,208 U.S. singleton births between 1972 and 2013. Exposures were indicators of whether the following 8 policies were in effect during gestation: Mandatory Warning Signs (MWS), Priority Treatment for Pregnant Women, Priority Treatment for Pregnant Women/Women with Children, Reporting Requirements for Data and Treatment Purposes, Prohibitions Against Criminal Prosecution, Civil Commitment, Reporting Requirements for Child Protective Services Purposes, and Child Abuse/Child Neglect. Outcomes were low birthweight (<2,500 g), premature birth (<37 weeks), any prenatal care utilization (PCU), late PCU, inadequate PCU, and normal (≥7) APGAR score. Multivariable fixed-effect logistic regressions controlling for both maternal- and state-level covariates were used for statistical analyses. Results: Of the 8 policies, 6 were significantly related to worse outcomes and 2 were not significantly related to any outcomes. The policy requiringMWS was related to the most outcomes: specifically, living in a state withMWS was related to 7% higher odds of low birthweight (p < 0.001); 4% higher odds of premature birth (p < 0.004); 18%lower odds of any PCU (p < 0.001); 12%higher odds of late PCU (p < 0.002); and 10% lower odds of a normal APGAR score (p < 0.001) compared to living in a state withoutMWS. Conclusions: Most policies targeting alcohol use during pregnancy do not have their intended effects and are related to worse birth outcomes and less PCU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Examining women's stress and social support following denial and receipt of abortion furthers understanding of the effects of unwanted childbearing and abortion on women's well-being. This study investigated perceived stress and emotional social support over time among women who were denied wanted abortions and who received abortions, and compared outcomes between the groups. Methods The Turnaway Study is a prospective cohort study of women who sought abortions at 30 abortion facilities across the United States, and follows women via semiannual phone interviews for five years. Participants include 956 English or Spanish speaking women aged 15 and over who sought abortions between 2008 and 2010 and whose gestation in pregnancy fit one of three groups: women who presented up to three weeks beyond a facility's gestational age limit and were denied an abortion; women presenting within two weeks below the limit who received an abortion; and women who received a first trimester abortion. The outcomes were modified versions of the Perceived Stress Scale and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Longitudinal mixed effects models were used to assess differences in outcomes between study groups over 30 months. Results Women denied abortions initially had higher perceived stress than women receiving abortions near gestational age limits (1.0 unit difference on 0-16 scale, P = 0.003). Women receiving first-trimester abortions initially had lower perceived stress than women receiving abortions near gestational age limits (0.6 difference, P = 0.045). By six months, all groups' levels of perceived stress were similar, and levels remained similar through 30 months. Emotional social support scores did not differ among women receiving abortions near gestational limits versus women denied abortions or women having first trimester abortions initially or over time. Conclusions Soon after being denied abortions, women experienced higher perceived stress than women who received abortions. The study found no longer-term differences in perceived stress or emotional social support between women who received versus were denied abortions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. We examined the relationship between state-level income inequality and alcohol outcomes and sought to determine whether associations of inequality with alcohol consumption and problems would be more evident with between-race inequality measures than with the Gini coefficient. We also sought to determine whether inequality would be most detrimental for disadvantaged individuals. Methods. Data from 2 nationally representative samples of adults (n = 13 997) from the 2000 and 2005 National Alcohol Surveys were merged with state-level inequality and neighborhood disadvantage indicators from the 2000 US Census. We measured income inequality using the Gini coefficient and between-race poverty ratios (Black-White and Hispanic-White). Multilevel models accounted for clustering of respondents within states. Results. Inequality measured by poverty ratios was positively associated with light and heavy drinking. Associations between poverty ratios and alcohol problems were strongest for Blacks and Hispanics compared with Whites. Household poverty did not moderate associations with income inequality. Conclusions. Poverty ratios were associated with alcohol use and problems, whereas overall income inequality was not. Higher levels of alcohol problems in high-inequality states may be partly due to social context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This systematic review focuses on research about macro-level gender equality and violence against women (VAW) and identifies conceptually and theoretically driven hypotheses as well as lessons relevant for alcohol research. Hypotheses include: amelioration—increased equality decreases VAW; backlash—increased equality increases VAW; and convergence—increased equality reduces the gender gap; and hypotheses that distinguish between relative and absolute status, with relative status comparing men's and women's status and absolute status measuring women's status without regard to men. Methods: Systematic review of studies published through June 2009 identified through PubMed and Web of Science, as well as citing and cited articles. Results: A total of 30 studies are included. Of 85 findings examining amelioration/backlash, 25% support amelioration, 22% backlash; and 53% are null. Of 13 findings examining convergence, 31% support and 23% are inconsistent with convergence; 46% are null. Conclusion: Neither the existence nor the direction of the equality and VAW relationship can be assumed. This suggests that the relationship between macro-level gender equality and alcohol should also not be assumed, but rather investigated through research. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Introduction Methods Results Discussion and Conclusions Little is known about reasons pregnant people self‐treat health conditions and pregnancy‐related symptoms with cannabis.We administered a cross‐sectional survey to 3571 pregnant and recently pregnant people from US population‐based panels. Participants who used cannabis at some point during pregnancy were asked which health conditions or symptoms they used cannabis to treat and reasons they used cannabis for self‐treatment. We explored differences in reasons for self‐treatment by sociodemographics.Nine‐hundred forty‐six participants indicated they used cannabis during pregnancy. Fifty‐seven percent (n = 578) of those who used cannabis during pregnancy indicated they used cannabis exclusively for health purposes; 39% (n = 347) indicated they used cannabis for health and recreation. The most common reasons for self‐treatment were believing cannabis was safer and more effective than other medications or treatments. Some participants reported not having health insurance or a health care provider as reasons for self‐treatment. Black and Hispanic people, and people with household income under $25,000, were more likely than White people and people with household income between $25,000–$49,999 to report barriers to other medications or treatments as reasons for self‐treatment. People with high school education were more likely than people with more education to report viewing cannabis as safe and effective for self‐treatment.Most pregnant people self‐treating health conditions or symptoms with cannabis are doing so because they consider it safer and more effective than other medications or treatments. Some people, particularly people of colour and low‐income people, may also self‐treat because they face barriers to other treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hospital policies play a role in healthcare providers' decision-making about reporting birthing people who use drugs to child welfare. This study sought to understand how these specific hospital policies are made., Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals involved in developing or revising hospital policies related to child welfare reporting for birthing people who use drugs. The interview guide was informed by an implementation science framework and focused on participants' experiences developing or revising these policies. We coded transcripts inductively, focusing on themes that emerged in the interviews themselves, and deductively, focusing on pre-determined aspects of the policy development process., Results: Participants ( N  = 16) were physicians (69%), registered nurses (19%), and social workers (12%). The sample was drawn from all regions of the United States. Two themes emerged in data analysis. The first theme was that urine drug testing policies for pregnant and birthing individuals are seen as part of hospital child welfare reporting policies. Specifically, participants often described child welfare reporting policies as including criteria for urine drug testing and explained that the connection between urine drug testing and child welfare reporting policies was by design. The second theme was that the content of hospital child welfare reporting policies is a result of hospital politics and a focus on legal compliance. They described the legal compliance aspects of the hospital policies as serving to protect the institution and, occasionally, individual employees from legal consequences., Conclusion: The content of hospital policies regarding birthing people who use drugs appears influenced by political and legal considerations more than considerations of patient or public health., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Introduction: Pregnant people who use substances experience significant stigma, including in healthcare settings, where physicians make high-stakes decisions about treatment plans, resource allocation, and even a person's ability to parent. Previous psychology research has demonstrated the influence of emotions on decision-making, as well as on the development and expression of stigma. Yet the specific content of physician emotions, as well as approaches to processing these emotions, has been relatively under-examined. We sought to better understand the emotional experiences of physicians who practice in safety-net labor and delivery/inpatient settings to inform strategies to facilitate more humanizing, equitable care., Methods: From March 2021 to June 2022, the study team conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 San Francisco Bay Area-based physicians (obstetrics-gynecology, pediatrics, family medicine) caring for pregnant people who use substances and/or their newborns. We used deductive and inductive coding and identified themes regarding the nature, etiology, and processing of physician emotions., Results: Physicians described experiencing a range of emotions related to interpersonal (patients, colleagues), systems-level, and internal dynamics. Emotions such as anger, sadness, frustration, and helplessness resulted from their deep care and empathy for patients, witnessing stigmatizing colleague behaviors, disagreement with punitive systems, and recognition of their own limitations in effecting change. Few participants identified strategies for processing these emotions, and several described efforts to disengage from their emotional experience to preserve their sense of well-being and professionalism., Conclusions: Physicians caring for pregnant people who use substances and their newborns experienced intense, multi-layered emotions. This study posits that additional efforts to support physician emotional processing and structural competency could improve healthcare experiences and outcomes for pregnant people who use substances., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Previous research has found that policies specifically focused on pregnant people's alcohol use are largely ineffective. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to analyze the relationships between general population policies regulating alcohol physical availability and outcomes related to pregnant people's alcohol use, specifically infant morbidities and injuries., Methods: Outcome data were obtained from Merative MarketScan, a longitudinal commercial insurance claims data set. Policy data were obtained from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's Alcohol Policy Information System, the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association, and Liquor Handbooks and merged using policies in effect during the estimated year of conception. Relationships between state-level policies regulating sites, days/hours, and government monopoly of liquor sales and infant morbidities and injuries were examined. Analyses used logistic regression with individual controls, fixed effects for state and year, state-specific time trends, and SEs clustered by state. The study analysis was conducted from 2021 to 2023., Results: The analytic sample included 1,432,979 infant-birthing person pairs, specifically people aged 25-50 years who gave birth to a singleton between 2006 and 2019. A total of 3.1% of infants had a morbidity and 2.1% of infants had an injury. State government monopoly on liquor sales was associated with reduced odds of infant morbidities and injuries, whereas gas station liquor sales were associated with increased odds of infant morbidities and injuries. Allowing liquor sales after 10PM was associated with increased odds for infant injuries. No effect was found for allowing liquor sales in grocery stores or on Sundays., Conclusions: Findings suggest that limiting alcohol availability for the general population may help reduce adverse infant outcomes related to pregnant people's alcohol use., (Copyright © 2024 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We aimed to measure both stated and experimentally "revealed" abortion provision preferences among US people with capacity for pregnancy., Study Design: In July 2022, we recruited US residents assigned female sex at birth and aged 18 to 55 years using Prolific, an online survey hosting platform. We asked participants what first-trimester abortion method and delivery model they would prefer. We also assessed abortion care preferences with a discrete choice experiment, which examined the relative importance of the following care attributes: method, distance, wait time for appointment, delivery model (telehealth vs in-clinic), and cost., Results: More than half of the 887 respondents (59%) self-reported a slight (22%) or strong (37%) preference for medication compared to aspiration abortion; 11% stated no preference. Our discrete choice experiment found that cost and wait time had a greater effect on hypothetical decision-making than did method and delivery model (discrete choice experiment average importances = 44.3 and 23.2, respectively, compared to 15.9 and 8.2, respectively). Simulations indicated that holding other attributes constant, respondents preferred medication to aspiration abortion and telehealth to in-clinic care., Conclusions: This study, the first to examine abortion preferences in the United States, using a discrete choice experiment, demonstrates the importance of wait time and cost in abortion care decision-making. Our work indicates that for this population, factors related to health care financing and organization may matter more than clinical aspects of care., Implications: Although people in this study preferred medication to aspiration abortion and telehealth to in-clinic care, wait time and cost of care played a greater role in care decision-making. Focusing solely on clinical aspects of care (i.e., method, delivery model) may ignore other attributes of care that are particularly important for potential patients., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Among pregnant and recently pregnant people we investigated whether legal recreational cannabis is associated with pregnancy-related cannabis use, safety beliefs, and perceived community stigma., Methods: In 2022, we surveyed 3571 currently and recently pregnant English- or Spanish-speaking adults in 37 states. Primary outcomes included cannabis use during pregnancy and two continuous scale measures of beliefs about safety and perceived community stigma. Using generalized linear models and mixed effects ordinal logistic regression with random effects for state, we assessed associations between legal recreational cannabis and outcomes of interest, controlling for state-level and individual-level covariates and specifying appropriate functional form., Results: Those who reported cannabis use during pregnancy were more likely to believe it is safe and to perceive community stigma compared to those who did not report use during pregnancy. Legal recreational cannabis was not associated with cannabis use during pregnancy, continuation or increase in use, frequency of use, or safety beliefs. Legal recreational cannabis was associated with lower perceived community stigma (coefficient: -0.07, 95% CI: -0.13, -0.01), including among those who reported use during (coefficient = -0.22, 95% CI: -0.40, -0.04) and prior to but not during (coefficient = -0.19, 95% CI: -0.37, -0.01) pregnancy., Conclusion: Findings do not support concerns that legal recreational cannabis is associated with cannabis use during pregnancy or beliefs about safety. Legal recreational cannabis may be associated with lower community stigma around cannabis use during pregnancy, which could have implications for pregnant people's disclosure of use and care-seeking behavior., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest We have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

The urine drug test is ubiquitous within reproductive healthcare settings. Although the test can have evidence-based use for a patient and clinician, in practice, it is often applied in ways that are driven by bias and stigma, do not correctly inform decisions about clinical aspects of patient care, and cause devastating ripple effects through social and legal systems. This paper proposes a framework of guiding questions to prompt reflection on (1) the question the clinical team is trying to answer, (2) whether a urine drug test answers the question at hand, (3) how testing benefits compare with the associated risks, (4) a more effective tool for clinical decision-making if the urine drug test does not meet the standards for use, and (5) individual and institutional biases affecting decision-making. We demonstrate the use of this framework using 3 common uses of the urine drug test within abortion care and labor and delivery settings., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Multiple health professional associations have expressed concern with policies that require clinician reporting of pregnant people's substance use to child welfare, including that reporting negatively affects patient outcomes and the patient-provider relationship. However, research has shown that clinicians continue to report pregnant and birthing patients at high rates., Objective: This study aimed to explore clinician views on reporting pregnant and birthing patients who use alcohol or drugs during pregnancy to child welfare and whether there are patterns in the types of decisions that clinicians agree with, disagree with, or feel conflicted about., Study Design: In-depth interviews were conducted with 37 hospital-based clinicians (13 obstetrics and gynecology physicians, 12 emergency medicine physicians, 10 family medicine physicians, and 2 advance practice registered nurses) in the United States. The participants discussed one or more patient cases where they or someone else on the care team had to decide whether to report that patient to child welfare related to their use of alcohol or drugs during pregnancy. Cases were categorized on the basis of whether the participant agreed, disagreed, or was conflicted by the reporting decision in that case. Patterns were explored by patient-level factors, provider specialty, and whether the participant perceived that the decision was influenced by a state or hospital policy., Results: A total of 53 patient cases (average 2 per interview) were identified. The participants typically described cases where they agreed with the decision to report or believed there was no other option than reporting. These cases typically involved patients who used nonprescribed opioids during pregnancy, were experiencing factors (eg, unstable housing and untreated mental health disorders) in addition to substance use, and/or left the hospital against medical advice without their infant. Moreover, some participants, mostly obstetricians and gynecologists, described cases where they felt conflicted about or disagreed with the decision to report. These cases typically involved pregnant patients using cannabis and patients reported because of hospital and/or state policy. Only 1 participant described a case where they disagreed with the decision to not report., Conclusion: The participants agreed with most, but not all, child welfare reporting decisions. When participants disagreed or felt conflicted with reporting decisions, these feelings were almost entirely related to decisions to report, which, in some cases, were prompted by hospital or state policies. Policies may prompt reporting that exceeds what clinicians believe is appropriate., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Medical professionals are key components of child maltreatment surveillance. Updated estimates of reporting rates by medical professionals are needed., Methods: We use the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (2000-2019) to estimate rates of child welfare investigations of infants stemming from medical professional reporting to child welfare agencies. We adjust for missing data and join records to population data to compute race/ethnicity-specific rates of infant exposure to child welfare investigations at the state-year level, including sub-analyses related to pregnant/parenting people's substance use., Results: Between 2010 and 2019, child welfare investigated 2.8 million infants; ∼26% ( n =731,705) stemmed from medical professionals' reports. Population-adjusted rates of these investigations stemming doubled between 2010 and 2019 (13.1-27.1 per 1000 infants). Rates of investigations stemming from medical professionals' reports increased faster than did rates for other mandated reporters, such as teachers and police, whose reporting remained relatively stable. In 2019, child welfare investigated ∼1 in 18 Black (5.4%), 1 in 31 Indigenous (3.2%), and 1 in 41 White infants (2.5%) following medical professionals' reports. Relative increases were similar across racial groups, but absolute increases differed, with 1.3% more of White, 1.7% of Indigenous, and 3.1% of Black infants investigated in 2019 than 2010. Investigations related to substance use comprised ∼35% of these investigations; in some states, this was almost 80%., Discussion: Rates of child welfare investigations of infants stemming from medical professional reports have increased dramatically over the past decade with persistent and notable racial inequities in these investigations., Competing Interests: No competing financial interests exist., (© Frank Edwards et al., 2023; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.)

Objectives: Prior 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 Design: We 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., Results: For 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., Conclusion: Changes 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., Implications: Disruptions 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., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

As U.S. states legalize recreational cannabis, some enact policies requiring Mandatory Warning Signs for cannabis during pregnancy (MWS-cannabis). While previous research has found MWS for alcohol during pregnancy (MWS-alcohol) associated with increases in adverse birth outcomes, research has not examined effects of MWS-cannabis. This study uses Vital Statistics birth certificate data from June 2015 - June 2017 in seven western states and policy data from NIAAA's Alcohol Policy Information System and takes advantage of the quasi-experiment created by Washington State's enactment of MWS-cannabis in June 2016, while nearby states did not. Outcomes are birthweight, low birthweight, gestation, and preterm birth. Analyses use a Difference-in-Difference approach and compare changes in outcomes in Washington to nearby states in the process of legalizing recreational cannabis (Alaska, California, Nevada) and, as a secondary analysis, nearby states continuing to criminalize recreational cannabis (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming). Birthweight was -7.03 g lower (95% CI -10.06, -4.00) and low birthweight 0.3% higher (95% CI 0.0, 0.6) when pregnant people were exposed to MWS-cannabis than when pregnant people were not exposed to MWS-cannabis, both statistically significant (p = 0.005 and p = 0.041). Patterns for gestation, -0.014 weeks earlier (95% CI -0.038, 0.010) and preterm birth 0.2% higher (95% CI -0.2, 0.7), were similar, although not statistically significant (p = 0.168 and 0.202). The direction of findings was similar in secondary analyses, although statistical significance varied. Similar to MWS-alcohol, enacting MWS-cannabis is associated with an increase in adverse birth outcomes. The idea that MWS-cannabis provide a public health benefit is not evidence-based., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Since abortion was legalized throughout the United States in 1973, states have passed restrictive abortion policies, including permitting only obstetrician-gynecologist physicians (OBGYNs) to provide abortions. We are unaware of any research that directly compares patient safety-related outcomes by physician specialty. In this study, we compared major and any abortion-related morbidity and adverse events in abortion care provided by physicians of other specialties versus OBGYNs., Study Design: Using the IBM Watson Health MarketScan claims database, we identified privately insured individuals who had an induced abortion between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2014. The primary outcome was major abortion-related morbidity or adverse events, and the secondary outcome was any abortion-related morbidity or adverse events occurring within 6 weeks of the abortion., Results: The study cohort included 34,764 patients who had 35,407 abortions-4,843 (13.7%) abortions provided by physicians of other specialties and 30,564 (86.3%) abortions provided by OBGYNs. Major and any abortion-related morbidity or adverse event occurred in 115 (0.3%) and 1,271 (3.6%) of 35,407 of abortions, respectively. In adjusted analyses, there was no statistically significant difference in major abortion-related morbidity or adverse events comparing physicians of other specialties versus OBGYNs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.75), and no statistically significant difference in any abortion-related morbidity or adverse events comparing physicians of other specialties versus OBGYNs (adjusted odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.09)., Conclusions: There were no differences in abortion-related morbidity or adverse events by physician specialty. Our findings do not support state laws limiting abortion care to OBGYN physicians., (Copyright © 2022 Jacobs Institute of Women's Health, George Washington University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the association between indicators of economic disadvantage and geographic accessibility of reproductive health services and abortions ≥ 12 weeks' gestation in Mississippi., Study Design: This cross-sectional study used data on Mississippi residents who obtained abortion care from 12 of 14 facilities in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Tennessee in 2018. We estimated logistic regression models to assess the association between levels of county deprivation, the number of obstetrician and/or gynecologists per 10,000 women, and one way distance to the nearest facility with having an abortion ≥ 12 weeks' gestation. We compared the median one-way distance to the facility where patients < 12 weeks', 12-15 weeks', and ≥ 16 weeks' gestation received care, using Kruskal-Wallis tests., Results: Of the 4,455 Mississippi residents who obtained abortions, 73% were Black, 59% lived ≥ 50 miles from a facility, and 60% obtained care in Mississippi. Overall, 764 (17.2%) abortions were performed ≥ 12 weeks' gestation. In adjusted models, those in counties with moderate (OR, 1.47; 95% CI: 1.15-1.90) and high (OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.01-1.83) (vs low) levels of economic deprivation and counties with 0.1-1.4 (vs ≥ 2.5) obstetrician/gynecologists per 10,000 women (OR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.06-2.27) had higher odds of obtaining an abortion ≥12 weeks' gestation. Mississippi residents who obtained abortions ≥ 16 weeks' gestation traveled a median 143 miles one way to the facility where they received care, compared to 69 miles and 60 miles traveled by those < 12 weeks' and 12-15 weeks' gestation, respectively (p < .001)., Conclusions: Many Mississippi residents obtained abortion care ≥ 12 weeks' gestation, which is related to greater economic constraints and limited geographic access to reproductive health services., Implications: People's need for abortions ≥ 12 weeks' gestation may be higher in communities with limited access to reproductive health services and among those living in areas with greater economic disadvantage. State laws that narrow gestational limits would increase long-distance travel for later abortion care, and disproportionately affect those with fewer resources., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study was to examine how gender, age and education, regional prevalence of male and female risky drinking and country-level economic gender equality are associated with harms from other people's drinking., Methods: 24,823 adults in ten countries were surveyed about harms from drinking by people they know and strangers. Country-level economic gender equality and regional prevalence of risky drinking along with age and gender were entered as independent variables into three-level random intercept models predicting alcohol-related harm., Findings: At the individual level, younger respondents were consistently more likely to report harms from others' drinking, while, for women, higher education was associated with lower risk of harms from known drinkers but higher risk of harms from strangers. Regional rate of men's risky drinking was associated with known and stranger harm, while regional-level women's risky drinking was associated with harm from strangers. Gender equality was only associated with harms in models in models that did not include risky drinking., Conclusions: Youth and regional levels of men's drinking was consistently associated with harm from others attributable to alcohol. Policies that decrease the risky drinking of men would be likely to reduce harms attributable to the drinking of others., Competing Interests: Declaration of Interest No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Background: As cannabis legalization spreads, so do concerns about potential harms from use during pregnancy. Legalization may facilitate improved patient-provider interactions about cannabis use. Yet little is known about pregnant people's discussions of cannabis use with healthcare providers in an environment where recreational cannabis is legal., Methods: In May-August 2019, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with 33 pregnant or postpartum people in California who used cannabis during pregnancy, and explored their discussions with healthcare providers about their cannabis use. We audio-recorded and transcribed interviews, and conducted thematic analysis using inductive and deductive methods., Results: Participants were diverse by age, race/ethnicity, and socio-economic position. Most reported daily cannabis use, both before and during pregnancy. Most participants did not disclose their cannabis use to their prenatal care providers, due to fears of being reported to child protective services (CPS), or fears of provider judgment. Participants reported that few providers initiated any discussions about cannabis use in pregnancy with them; some participants interpreted this omission as tacit endorsement of cannabis use in pregnancy. When participants and providers did discuss cannabis use in pregnancy, participants heard a wide range of sometimes-conflicting health messages, as well as some legal threats., Conclusions: This study documents notable deficits in patient-provider interactions about cannabis. Pregnant patients' fears of being reported to CPS and separated from their children for cannabis use persist despite cannabis legalization. Providers' role as potential reporters to CPS appears to pose a significant barrier to comprehensive, compassionate counseling and education on cannabis use in pregnancy., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: A major challenge to understanding barriers to abortion is that those individuals most affected may never reach an abortion provider, making the full impact of restrictive policies difficult to measure. The Google Ads Abortion Access Study used a novel method to recruit individuals much earlier in the abortion-seeking process. We aimed to understand how state-level abortion policies and Medicaid coverage of abortion influence individuals' ability to obtain wanted abortions., Methods: We employed a stratified sampling design to recruit a national cohort from all 50 states searching Google for abortion care. Participants completed online baseline and 4-week follow-up surveys. The primary independent variables were: 1) state policy environment and 2) state coverage of abortion for people with Medicaid. We developed multivariable multinomial mixed effects models to estimate the associations between each state-level independent variable and pregnancy outcome., Results: Of the 874 participants with follow-up data, 48% had had an abortion, 32% were still seeking an abortion, and 20% were planning to continue their pregnancies at 4 weeks follow-up. Individuals in restricted access states had significantly higher odds of planning to continue the pregnancy at follow-up than participants in protected access states (aOR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.08, 2.70). Individuals in states that do not provide coverage of abortion for people with Medicaid had significantly higher odds of still seeking an abortion at follow-up (aOR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.24, 2.60). Individuals living in states without Medicaid coverage were significantly more likely to report that having to gather money to pay for travel expenses or for the abortion was a barrier to care., Conclusions: Restrictive state-level abortion policies are associated with not having an abortion at all and lack of coverage for abortion is associated with prolonged abortion seeking. Medicaid coverage of abortion appears critical to ensuring that all people who want abortions can obtain them., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Context: The ways in which the COVID-19 pandemic has affected abortion providers and abortion care, and the strategies clinics are adopting to navigate the pandemic, have not been well documented., Methods: In April-May 2020, representatives from 103 independent abortion clinics (i.e., those not affiliated with Planned Parenthood) completed a survey that included close-ended questions about how the pandemic, the public health response, and designations of abortion as a nonessential service had affected their clinic, as well as open-ended questions about the pandemic's impact. Analyses were primarily descriptive but included an exploration of regional variation., Results: All U.S. regions were represented in the sample. At 51% of clinics, clinicians or staff had been unable to work because of the pandemic or public health responses. Temporary closures were more common among clinics in the South (35%) and Midwest (21%) than in the Northeast and West (5% each). More than half of clinics had canceled or postponed nonabortion services (e.g., general gynecologic care); cancelation or postponement of abortion services was less common (25-38%, depending on type) and again especially prevalent in the South and Midwest. Respondents reported the pandemic had had numerous effects on their clinics, including disrupting their workforce, clinic flow and work practices; increasing expenses; and reducing revenues. State laws (including designations of abortion as nonessential) had exacerbated these difficulties., Conclusions: Although independent abortion clinics have faced considerable challenges from the pandemic, most continued to provide abortion care. Despite this resiliency, additional support may be needed to ensure sustainability of these clinics., (Copyright © 2020 by the Guttmacher Institute.)

Objective: Access to abortion care in the United States (US) is restricted by numerous logistical and financial barriers, which have been further intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to understand the ways in which COVID-19 prompted changes in clinical practices in abortion care among independent abortion clinics., Study Design: We surveyed independent US abortion clinics and documented changes in practice regarding the provision of abortion since March 1, 2020., Results: Among about 153 independent clinics invited, 100 clinics contributed relevant data and were included in the analytic sample. A total of 87% reported changes in protocols in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Reported changes included moving to telehealth (phone or video) for follow-up (71%), starting or increasing telehealth for patient consultations and screening (41%), reducing Rh testing (43%) and other tests (42%), and omitting the preabortion ultrasound (15%). A total of 20% reported allowing quick pickup of medication abortion pills, and 4% began mailing medications directly to patients after a telehealth consultation. Clinical practice changes were reported throughout all regions of the US, but facilities in the Northeast (73%) were more likely to report starting or increasing telehealth than facilities in the South (23%, p < .001)., Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated use of telehealth among independent abortion clinics, but many clinics, particularly those in the South, have been unable to make these changes. Other practices such as reducing preabortion ultrasounds were less common in all regions despite clinical guidelines and evidence supporting such changes in practice and positive benefits for public health and patient-centered care., Implications: The COVID-19 pandemic has created a window of opportunity to remove barriers to abortion, including expanding telehealth and reducing preabortion tests. Clinics can strive for a culture shift towards simplifying the provision of medication abortion and routinely avoiding preabortion tests and in-person visits. Such changes in practice could have positive benefits for public health and patient-centered care., (© 2020 The Authors.)

Purpose: Despite the prevalence of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) use screening as part of prenatal care, pregnant women's perspectives on screening are largely absent from research and clinical practice. This study examines pregnant women's acceptability of ATOD screening and willingness to disclose their ATOD use in prenatal care., Methods: Pregnant women completed a self-administered survey and structured interview at four prenatal care facilities in Louisiana and Maryland (N = 589). Participants reported the acceptability of screening and their willingness to honestly disclose their ATOD use to their provider. Data were analyzed through descriptive statistics, tests of proportions, simple regression models, and coding of open-ended responses., Results: Nearly all pregnant women found screening acceptable for alcohol (97%), tobacco (98%), and other drug use (97%) during prenatal care. The acceptability of alcohol use screening was higher among those who reported binge drinking (98% vs. 96%; p = .002) and risky alcohol consumption (99% vs. 96%; p = .018). The acceptability of screening for other drugs was higher among women reporting binge drinking (98% vs. 96%; p = .032) and other drug use (98% vs. 96%; p = .058). Almost all pregnant women indicated that they were willing to disclose their alcohol (99%), tobacco (99%), and other drug use (98%) to their provider., Conclusions: Almost all women considered verbal screening for ATOD use during prenatal care acceptable and indicated that they were willing to honestly disclose their ATOD use. Verbal screening may allow for the opportunity to initiate safe, nonjudgmental conversations about women's substance use, risk, and goals for their ATOD use, pregnancy, and parenting., (Copyright © 2020 Jacobs Institute of Women's Health. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The few studies examining pregnancy testing in emergency departments (EDs) address pregnancy-related physical risks. Here, we examine experiences of people who discover pregnancies in EDs., Methods: Between 2015 and 2017, as part of a larger study, we conducted interviews with 29 women in Southern Louisiana ( n  = 13) and Baltimore, MD ( n  = 16), who reported discussing their pregnancy during an ED visit. We analyzed these interviews for content and themes., Results: Respondents reported diagnosis of pregnancy as a routine and straightforward component of care received in EDs. They reported receiving diagnostic studies and therapeutic interventions to rule out and treat complications of pregnancy and care for what brought them to the ED to begin with, such as treatments for nausea and vomiting; education about physical symptoms and nutrition-related needs during pregnancy; and referrals to prenatal care. However, we find evidence of unmet needs related to patient-centered communication, such as providing emotional care to women discovering pregnancies in EDs and lack of support for transitions to abortion care., Conclusions: While diagnosis of pregnancy in the ED may be routine for ED clinicians, it is not necessarily routine or straightforward for people receiving the diagnosis. ED clinicians should not assume that all people who discover their pregnancies in the ED want to continue their pregnancy. People who discover pregnancies in EDs may benefit from patient-centered communication and support for the range of transitions to care people might need in addition to the routinely provided diagnostic and therapeutic interventions., Implications: ED clinicians may need additional training and support to ensure that they can meet the range of needs of people who discover their pregnancies in the ED., (© 2020 The Authors.)

Objective: In recent years, U.S. states have passed many restrictive abortion policies with a rationale of protecting health and safety, in apparent contravention of abundant scientific evidence on abortion safety. This study explored whether and how state legislators use scientific evidence when deciding abortion policy., Study Design: We conducted 29 semi-structured interviews with state legislators and their aides in Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia in March through July 2017. We recruited via e-mail to members of all health-related committees of the General Assembly in each state, plus sponsors and co-sponsors of 2017 abortion bills, with follow-up via phone and in person. We conducted iterative thematic analysis of all interview transcripts., Results: We found no cases of lawmakers' decisions on abortion being shifted by evidence. However, some lawmakers used evidence in simplified form to support their claims on abortion. Lawmakers gave credence to evidence they received from trusted sources, and that which supported their pre-existing policy preferences. Personal stories appeared more convincing than evidence, with participants drawing broad conclusions from anecdotes. Democrats and Republicans had different views on bias in evidence., Conclusions: In this sample, evidence did not drive state legislators' policymaking on abortion. However, evidence did help inform high-level understanding of abortion, if such evidence supported legislators' pre-existing policy preferences. This work may help public health practitioners and researchers develop more realistic expectations for how research interacts with policymaking., Implications of This Work: To increase the utility of research, reproductive health researchers and practitioners should 1) work with established intermediaries to convey findings to lawmakers; 2) present stories that illustrate research findings; and 3) consider the evidence needs of the judicial branch, in addition to those of legislators., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Several states require that abortions be provided in ambulatory surgery centers. Supporters of such laws argue that they make abortions safer, yet previous studies have found no differences in abortion-related morbidities or adverse events for abortions performed in ambulatory surgery centers versus office-based settings. However, little is known about how costs of abortions provided in ambulatory surgery centers differ from those provided in office-based settings., Objective: To compare healthcare expenditures for abortions performed in ambulatory surgery centers versus office-based settings using a large national private insurance claims database., Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study compared expenditures for abortions performed in ambulatory surgery centers versus office-based settings. Data on women who had abortions in an ambulatory surgery center or office-based setting between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2014 were obtained from the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database. The sample was limited to women who were continuously enrolled in their insurance plans for at least 1 year before and at least 6 weeks after the abortion. Healthcare expenditures were assessed separately for the index abortion and the 6-week period after the abortion. Costs were measured from the perspective of the healthcare system and included all payments to the provider, including insurance company payments and any patient out-of-pocket payments., Results: Overall, 49,287 beneficiaries who had 50,311 abortions met inclusion criteria. Of the included abortions, 47% were first-trimester aspiration, 27% first-trimester medication, and 26% second-trimester or later abortions. Most abortions (89%) were provided in office-based settings, with 11% provided in ambulatory surgery centers. Unadjusted mean index abortion costs were higher in ambulatory surgery centers than in office-based settings ($1704 versus $810; P < .001). After adjusting for patient clinical and demographic characteristics, costs of index abortions were $772 higher (95% confidence interval, $746-$797), total follow-up costs for abortions that had any follow-up care were $1099 higher (95% confidence interval, $1004-$1,195), and total follow-up costs for abortions that had an abortion-related morbidity or adverse event were not significantly different in ambulatory surgery centers compared to office-based settings. There were also no significant differences in the likelihood of having any follow-up care or abortion-related event follow-up care., Conclusion: Abortions performed at ambulatory surgery centers are significantly more costly than those performed in office-based settings, with no difference in the likelihood of receiving follow-up care. Laws requiring that abortions be provided in ambulatory surgery centers may only result in increased costs for abortions, with no effect on abortion safety., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: In recent years, in an attempt to counter stigma and increase empathy, public education campaigns have encouraged people to share their personal abortion stories. This exploratory study sought to document negative and positive experiences of those who have shared their abortion stories publicly., Study Design: We conducted an anonymous online survey of people who have shared their abortion story publicly ( N  = 88), recruited via partners affiliated with two abortion story-sharing campaigns. The survey asked about the context in which respondents shared their abortion story, any negative and positive experiences online and in "real life" as a result of story sharing, and any problems or benefits resulting from these experiences. We analyzed survey data using descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses and categorizing responses to open-ended questions., Results: Sixty percent of respondents reported experiencing harassment and other negative incidents after sharing their story publicly. These experiences contributed to emotional stress, problems with loved ones and difficulties at work and/or school. These harms were reported even by many respondents who used only a first name or alias when sharing their story. Despite this, positive experiences as a result of story sharing were reported by four out of five respondents and motivated many to continue sharing their story., Conclusions: This exploratory study indicates that many people who share their abortion story publicly find it to be an empowering, rewarding experience. Yet they also experience harassment and threats at high rates. Future research should explore both positive and negative experiences in more depth., Implications: Sharing one's personal abortion story as part of a public education campaign can be a positive, empowering experience. Nevertheless, policymakers, journalists and reproductive health advocates should recognize the potential harms experienced by people who share their abortion story publicly and consider measures to support these individuals., (© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Gender inequality and cultures of binge drinking may increase the risk of second-hand harms from alcohol., Methods: Using the 2014-2015 National Alcohol Survey and 2015 National Alcohol's Harm to Others Survey (N = 7792), we examine associations of state-level gender equality measures (contraceptive access, abortion rights, women's economic equality) and binge drinking cultures (rates of men's and women's binge drinking) with individual-level indicators of second-hand harms by drinking strangers and partners/spouses., Results: In main effects models, only male binge drinking was associated with greater odds of harms from drinking strangers. There were significant interactions of gender equality with male binge drinking: High male binge drinking rates were more strongly associated with stranger-perpetrated harms in states low on contraceptive access or abortion rights compared to states high on these measures. Conversely, male binge drinking was more strongly associated with spouse/partner-perpetrated second-hand harms in states with more economic equality, compared to states lower on this measure., Conclusions: Detrimental effects of high male binge drinking rates may be modified by gender equality. Targeted interventions may reduce alcohol-related harms experienced by women in states with high rates of male binge drinking. Restrictions in access to contraception and abortion may exacerbate harms due to men's drinking., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Purpose: States 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., Methods: Pregnant 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., Results: On 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., Conclusions: Pregnant 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., (Copyright © 2019 Jacobs Institute of Women's Health. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Recent research has found that most U.S. state policies related to alcohol use during pregnancy adversely impact health. Other studies indicate that state policymaking around substance use in pregnancy-especially in the U.S.-appears to be influenced by an anti-abortion agenda rather than by public health motivations. This commentary explores the ways that scientists' aversion to abortion appear to influence science and thus policymaking around alcohol and pregnancy. The three main ways abortion aversion shows up in the literature related to alcohol use during pregnancy include: (1) a shift from the recommendation of abortion for "severely chronic alcoholic women" to the non-acknowledgment of abortion as an outcome of an alcohol-exposed pregnancy; (2) the concern that recommendations of abstinence from alcohol use during pregnancy lead to terminations of otherwise wanted pregnancies; and (3) the presumption of abortion as a negative pregnancy outcome. Thus, abortion aversion appears to influence the science related to alcohol use during pregnancy, and thus policymaking-to the detriment of developing and adopting policies that reduce the harms from alcohol during pregnancy.

Objectives: State policies regarding alcohol use during pregnancy (alcohol/pregnancy policies) have been in effect for more than 40 years. Previous research finds some policies increase adverse birth outcomes and decrease prenatal care utilization. This research examines whether effects of alcohol/pregnancy policies vary by race; the general hypothesis is that health benefits of policies are concentrated among White women and health harms of policies are concentrated among Black women., Methods: This study uses 1972-2015 Vital Statistics data and policy data from NIAAA's Alcohol Policy Information System and original legal research. The dataset includes more than 150 million singleton births. Outcomes are preterm birth (PTB), low birthweight (LBW), and prenatal care utilization. Logistic regression models include raceXpolicy interaction terms as main predictors, adjust for individual- and state-level controls, include fixed effects for state, year and state-specific time trends, and account for clustering by state., Results: The impact of alcohol/pregnancy policies varied by race for preterm birth, varied in a few cases for low birthweight, and generally did not vary for prenatal care utilization. The hypothesis regarding the direction of differential effects was not supported. Six policies had an adverse impact on PTB and/or LBW for White women. Findings differed for Black women; for Black women, four policies had a beneficial impact for PTB and one had an adverse impact for LBW., Conclusions: The impact of alcohol/pregnancy policies on birth outcomes varies by race. Future research should explore why some policies appear to have opposite effects for White v. Black women., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Most states have at least one policy targeting alcohol use during pregnancy. The public health impact of these policies has not been examined. We sought to examine the relationship between state-level policies targeting alcohol use during pregnancy and alcohol use among pregnant women., Methods: Data include state-level alcohol and pregnancy policy data and individual-level U.S. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data about pregnant women's alcohol use from 1985 to 2016 (N = 57,194). Supportive policies include mandatory warning signs, priority substance abuse treatment, reporting requirements for data and treatment purposes, and prohibitions on criminal prosecution. Punitive policies include civil commitment, Child Protective Services reporting requirements, and child abuse/neglect. Analyses include logistic regression models that adjust for individual- and state-level controls, include fixed effects for state and year, account for clustering by state, and weight by probability of selection., Results: Relative to having no policies, supportive policy environments were associated with more any drinking, but not binge or heavy drinking. Of individual supportive policies, only the following relationships were statistically significant: mandatory warning signs was associated with lower odds of binge drinking, and priority treatment for pregnant women and women with children was associated with higher odds of any drinking. Relative to no policies, punitive policy environments were also associated with more drinking, but not with binge or heavy drinking. Of individual punitive policies, only child abuse/neglect was associated with lower odds of binge and heavy drinking. Mixed policy environments were not associated with any alcohol outcome., Conclusions: Most policies targeting alcohol use during pregnancy do not seem to be associated with less alcohol consumption during pregnancy., (Copyright © 2019 Jacobs Institute of Women's Health. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)