Search

Evidence suggests that entertainment media may influence knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to health topics. After the overturning of Roe v. Wade, it is critical to examine how these media may be associated with people’s knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions related to abortion. Using a non-experimental ex post facto design, we examined whether exposure to any of three abortion plotlines was correlated with (a) greater knowledge about abortion, (b) lower stigmatizing attitudes about abortion, and (c) higher likelihood of supporting someone seeking an abortion among a sample of television audience members (N = 1,016), administered via a survey on Qualtrics. We selected three scripted, fictional abortion plotlines on the U.S. television shows Station 19, Better Things, and A Million Little Things, based on medical accuracy and airdates near each other in March 2022. Exposure to a plotline was defined as accurately answering at least two recall questions about a given plotline. We found that compared to those who were not exposed to any of the plotlines, exposure to any of the three plot lines was associated with greater knowledge about abortion and higher willingness to support a friend seeking an abortion, but not with lower stigmatizing attitudes. Exposure to medically accurate depictions of abortion on television may be one way to improve knowledge about abortion and community support for people seeking abortion.

Building on existing scholarship examining how audiences interpret reproductive experiences on film and television, we investigate how viewers make meaning of representations of motherhood, abortion, adoption, and surrogacy on the Hulu television miniseries Little Fires Everywhere. We recruited twenty-one participants to watch the series and conducted three virtual focus groups of seven women each. Based on the racial identities of the main characters in the series, we segmented these groups by race: one group each of white women, Black women, and Chinese American women. Focus groups were facilitated by moderators who matched the racial and ethnic backgrounds of each group. We asked participants about their overall reactions to the series, their impressions of various characters, and each reproductive health plotline. Participants expressed both tender and critical reactions to characters who endured motherhood, surrogacy and adoption, yet most participants were overtly critical of Lexie, the character who obtained an abortion. We argue that this is likely because the character of Lexie is written as largely unsympathetic, leaving audiences with little opportunity to form a parasocial relationship with her. We discuss the implications of this for cultural conversations and understandings of abortion more broadly.

Abstract Scholars and advocates often cite media as a mechanism to change culture, especially related to contested issues in American politics such as abortion. While there is mixed evidence in support of this claim, it is not clear how media content creators conceptualize their abortion plotlines. We identified television shows available to U.S. audiences that included abortion plotlines and purposively recruited the creators who worked on them. Forty-six American creators completed in-depth interviews. Respondents’ primary reasons for including abortion plotlines were: (1) to normalize abortion; (2) to deploy abortion as source of character development; and (3) to respond to politics. Some respondents reported barriers to getting abortion content from page to screen, including stigmatizing attitudes towards abortion from colleagues and network executives. Respondents did not necessarily aspire to reflect the reality of abortion access in the US, instead seeking to destigmatize abortion by portraying televisual representations of compassionate, shame-free abortions.

Self-managed abortion, when a person performs their own abortion without clinical supervision, is a model of abortion care used across a range of settings. To provide a comprehensive synthesis of the available literature on self-managed abortion, we conducted a systematic search for peer-reviewed research in April 2019 in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Popline, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Scielo, and Redalyc. We included studies that had a research question focused on self-managed abortion; and were published in English or Spanish. The combined search returned 7,167 studies; after screening, 99 studies were included in the analysis. Included studies reported on methods, procurement, characteristics of those who self-managed, effectiveness, safety, reasons for self-managed abortion, and emotional and physical experiences. Numerous abortion methods were reported, most frequently abortion with pills and herbs. Studies reporting on self-managed medication abortion reported high-levels of effectiveness. We identify gaps in the research, and make recommendations to address those gaps.

ObjectiveIn 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 designWe 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.ResultsSixty 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.ConclusionsThis 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.ImplicationsSharing 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.

Building on existing scholarship examining how audiences interpret reproductive experiences on film and television, we investigate how viewers make meaning of representations of motherhood, abortion, adoption, and surrogacy on the Hulu television miniseries Little Fires Everywhere. We recruited twenty-one participants to watch the series and conducted three virtual focus groups of seven women each. Based on the racial identities of the main characters in the series, we segmented these groups by race: one group each of white women, Black women, and Chinese American women. Focus groups were facilitated by moderators who matched the racial and ethnic backgrounds of each group. We asked participants about their overall reactions to the series, their impressions of various characters, and each reproductive health plotline. Participants expressed both tender and critical reactions to characters who endured motherhood, surrogacy and adoption, yet most participants were overtly critical of Lexie, the character who obtained an abortion. We argue that this is likely because the character of Lexie is written as largely unsympathetic, leaving audiences with little opportunity to form a parasocial relationship with her. We discuss the implications of this for cultural conversations and understandings of abortion more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Given the politicization of abortion, professionals working in U.S. health departments (HDs) may not be receptive to communications about abortion, despite often regulating abortion facilities. This paper reports results of a randomized, prospective, observational study to test the effects of e-mail language when disseminating evidence on abortion to HD professionals. Our sample was 302 HD employees who oversee healthcare facilities inspection/regulation in all 50 U.S. state HDs, clustered by HD and randomized into two study groups. In November–December 2019, we sent biweekly e-mails containing links to a website summarizing evidence on abortion facility regulation. E-mails/headers sent to one group emphasized public health values and did not include the word abortion; e-mails/headers to the other group used the word abortion. Primary outcome measures were e-mail open rates and click-through rates. Among 221 participants to whom e-mails were deliverable, the overall open rate was 36%. Open rate was 25% for PH values and 46% for abortion groups (p <.05). Effects were moderated by state abortion policy environment: in both supportive and restrictive environments, participants in the abortion messaging group were statistically more likely to open e-mails than those in the PH values group. There was no difference between groups in states with middle-ground abortion policy environments. Among participants opening at least one e-mail, 19% clicked through to the website, with no significant difference by group. This study demonstrates that repeated targeted e-mail campaigns can reach HD professionals with research summaries. Concerns that communications to HDs should avoid the word abortion are unsupported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]