Prenatal and postpartum care during the COVID-19 pandemic: An increase in barriers from early to mid-pandemic in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to changes in the provision of pregnancy and postpartum care. The purpose of this study was to describe changes in access to prenatal and postpartum care over time, from early in the pandemic (July 2020) to mid-pandemic (January 2021) and to explore socioeconomic and COVID-19-related economic factors associated with experiencing barriers to care. METHODS: We recruited two cross sections of women and birthing people in the US in July 2020 (N = 4645) and January 2021 (N = 3343) using Facebook and Instagram Ads. RESULTS: Three out of four women in the prenatal period and four out of five women in the postpartum period reported barriers to scheduling a visit. The likelihood of not having a visit (OR = 4.44, 95% CI 2.67-7.40), being unable to schedule a visit (OR = 2.73, 95% CI 1.71-4.35), and not being offered visits (OR = 4.26, 95% CI 2.32-7.81) increased over time. Participants were more likely to report barriers attending scheduled prenatal or postpartum appointments over time (OR = 2.72, 95% CI 2.14-3.45). Women who experienced more economic impacts from COVID-19 were older, less educated, and were Black, Indigenous, or a person of color, and were more likely to have barriers to attending appointments. CONCLUSIONS: Certain subgroups are more at risk during COVID-19, and around 9 months into the pandemic, women were not only still facing barriers to care, but these had been amplified. Additional research using other data sources is needed to identify and ameliorate barriers and inequalities in access to prenatal and postpartum care that appear to have persisted throughout the pandemic.

The association of experiences of medical mistrust and mistreatment and ever considering self-managing an abortion.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of ever considering self-managing an abortion (SMA) and its associations with experiences of medical mistrust and mistreatment in a nationally representative sample. STUDY DESIGN: In 2021-22, we conducted a national, cross-sectional, online probability-based survey of US people assigned female at birth ages 15-49. Among those who had ever been pregnant, we ran weighted multivariable logistic regressions to examine whether having had difficulty trusting medical providers and/or experiencing medical mistreatment was associated with SMA consideration. RESULTS: Of 4260 participants who had ever been pregnant, 5.2% (95% CI, 4.3%-6.3%) ever considered SMA. Additionally, 38.8% (95% CI, 36.8%-40.9%) reported prior moderate medical mistrust; 17.0% (15.4%-18.6%) experienced neglect of symptoms only, and 22.2% (20.6%-24.0%) experienced ridicule or humiliation in a previous healthcare encounter. In multivariable analyses, those who reported prior high medical mistrust had increased odds of considering SMA (aOR=5.2, [95% CI, 2.9-9.2]), compared to those who had no prior medical mistrust. Those who had experienced ridicule or humiliation by healthcare providers had increased odds of considering SMA (aOR=3.8, [95% CI, 2.3-6.1]), compared to those without such experiences. Participants who believed others perceived them as Black or Arab/Middle Eastern, were poor in their youth, or identified as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and other had higher proportions of considering SMA (p-values<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Experiences of medical mistrust and mistreatment are common and are associated with increased likelihood of considering SMA. Those who identified with a structurally minoritized group were more likely to consider SMA, and those whose "street race" was Arab/Middle Eastern had the highest likelihood. IMPLICATIONS: If restrictions on abortion continue to increase, individuals may further consider SMA. Our findings suggest a need to create healthcare environments that foster trust and respect, as well as to ensure people have access to safe options for SMA.

Changes in the Frequency and Type of Barriers to Reproductive Health Care Between 2017 and 2021.

Importance: Previous research has documented individual-level barriers to reproductive health services, but few studies have examined national trends. Objective: To determine whether the number and type of barriers to reproductive health care experienced by US women of reproductive age changed from 2017 to 2021. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used serial survey data, weighted to be nationally representative, collected in August 2017 and December 2021 from members of Ipsos's KnowledgePanel who were aged 18 to 49 years and assigned female at birth. Exposures: Having experienced barriers to reproductive health care over the past 3 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was number and type of barriers to reproductive health care services, including Papanicolaou tests or birth control, experienced in the past 3 years. Increases in barriers to reproductive health care were measured using multivariable linear regressions adjusted for age, race and ethnicity, education level, employment status, metropolitan area, geographic region, household income, and language (English vs Spanish). Results: Of 29 496 KnowledgePanel members invited, 7022 (mean [SD] age, 33.9 [9.0] years) and 6841 (mean [SD] age, 34.2 [8.6] years) completed the 2017 and 2021 surveys (50% and 45% response rates, respectively). Among 12 351 participants who indicated that they had ever tried accessing reproductive health services, 35.9% (95% CI, 34.8%-37.0%) were aged 30 to 39 years; 5.5% (95% CI, 4.9%-6.2%) were Asian or Pacific Islander, 13.7% (95% CI, 12.8%-14.6%) were Black, 19.1% (95% CI, 18.1%-20.1%) were Hispanic, 58.2% (95% CI, 57.0%-59.5%) were White, and 3.5% (95% CI, 3.1%-4.0%) were multiracial or of other race or ethnicity; and 11.7% (95% CI, 11.0%-12.5%) were living below 100% of the federal poverty level. Covariate distribution was similar across years. In bivariable analyses, participants were more likely to report experiencing a given barrier in the past 3 years in 2021 than in 2017 for all but 2 barriers. More people experienced 3 or more barriers in 2021 (18.6%; 95% CI, 17.3%-20.0%) than in 2017 (16.1%; 95% CI, 14.9%-17.4%) (P = .008). In multivariable analyses, the mean number of barriers increased significantly from 1.09 (95% CI, 1.02-1.14) in 2017 to 1.29 (95% CI, 1.22-1.37) (P < .001) in 2021. Participants who were aged 25 to 29 years (0.42; 95% CI, 0.37-0.47), identified as Hispanic (0.41; 95% CI, 0.38-0.45), had no high school diploma or General Educational Development test (0.62; 95% CI, 0.53-0.72), lived below 100% of the federal poverty level (0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.73), and took the survey in Spanish (0.87; 95% CI, 0.73-1.01) saw the greatest increases in mean number of barriers between 2017 and 2021. Conclusions and Relevance: The study findings suggest that barriers to reproductive health care increased between 2017 and 2021, with the largest increases observed among individuals from historically disadvantaged populations. Efforts are needed to ensure that reproductive health care access remains a priority.

Access to Reproductive Health Services Among People With Disabilities.

Importance: People with disabilities face inequitable access to reproductive health (RH) services, yet the national prevalence of barriers to access experienced across disability types and statuses is unknown. Objective: To assess the national prevalence of barriers to RH access experienced by people with disabilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed results of an online probability-based national survey of RH experiences that was conducted from December 2021 to January 2022. The national sample consisted of English- and Spanish-speaking panel members of a market research firm. Panelists were invited to participate in a survey on their RH experiences and opinions. These participants were aged 15 to 49 years and assigned female at birth (AFAB). Weighted proportions were estimated, and bivariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess associations between disability status and barriers to accessing RH services. Exposure: Using 5 of the 6 Washington Group Short Set on Functioning items, 8 dichotomous disability indicators were created: (1) vision, (2) hearing, (3) mobility, (4) activities of daily living, (5) communication, (6) overall disability status (a lot or more difficulty functioning in ≥1 domain), (7) some difficulty functioning (below the disability threshold; some or more difficulty functioning in ≥1 domain), and (8) multiple disabilities (a lot or more difficulty functioning in ≥2 domains). Main Outcomes and Measures: Number and types of barriers (logistical, access, cost, privacy, and interpersonal relationship) to accessing RH services in the past 3 years. Results: After exclusion, the final sample included 6956 people AFAB, with a mean (SD) age of 36.0 (8.3) years. Of these participants, 8.5% (95% CI, 7.6%-9.5%) met the disability threshold. Participants with disabilities compared with those without disabilities were disproportionately more likely to be non-Hispanic Black (18.8% [95% CI, 14.4%-24.1%] vs 13.2% [95% CI, 11.9%-14.5%]) or Hispanic or Latinx (completed survey in English: 18.1% [95% CI, 14.0%-23.0%] vs 14.6% [95% CI, 13.3%-16.0%]; completed survey in Spanish: 8.9% [95% CI, 6.2%-12.8%] vs 6.2% [95% CI, 5.4%-7.1%]) individuals, to identify as LGBTQAI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer [or questioning], asexual [or allied], intersex; 16.4% [95% CI, 12.3%-21.6%] vs 11.8% [95% CI, 10.6%-13.1%]), to live below the federal poverty level (27.3% [95% CI, 22.3%-32.8%] vs 10.7% [95% CI, 9.7%-11.9%]), and to ever experienced medical mistreatment (49.6% [95% CI, 43.7%-55.5%] vs 36.5% [95% CI, 34.8%-38.2%]). Among those who had ever tried to access RH services (n = 6027), people with disabilities vs without disabilities were more likely to experience barriers (69.0% [95% CI, 62.9%-74.5%] vs 43.0% [95% CI, 41.2%-44.9%]), which were most often logistical (50.7%; 95% CI, 44.2%-57.2%) and access (49.9%; 95% CI, 43.4%-56.4%) barriers. The disability domains with the highest proportion of people who experienced 3 or more barriers in the past 3 years included activities of daily living (75.3%; 95% CI, 61.1%-85.6%), communication (65.1%; 95% CI, 49.5%-78.1%), and multiple (59.9%; 95% CI, 45.6%-72.7%) disabilities. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found large disparities in access to RH services among people AFAB with disabilities. Findings indicated a need to alleviate barriers to RH care, including improving the transportation infrastructure and reinforcing patient-centered approaches that engender inclusivity in health care settings.

Professionalism in Family Planning Care Workshop.

INTRODUCTION: When clinicians feel negative emotions toward patients, providinge patient-centered care can be difficult. This can occur in family planning scenarios, such as when a provider is uncomfortable with a patient choosing abortion. The Professionalism in Family Planning Care Workshop (PFPCW), framed around professionalism values, used guided reflection to foster self-awareness and empathy in order to teach future providers to provide patient-centered care. METHODS: In the PFPCW, learners discussed challenging patient interactions and family planning scenarios to develop self-awareness and identify strategies for maintaining therapeutic relationships with patients when they experience negative feelings toward them. We implemented the workshop across the United States and Canada and collected pre- and postsurvey data to evaluate program outcomes at Kirkpatrick evaluation levels of participant reaction and effects on learners' attitudes. RESULTS: A total of 403 participants participated in 27 workshops in which pre- and postworkshop surveys (70% and 46% response rates, respectively) were administered. Sixty-five percent of the participants were residents, and 36% had previously participated in a similar workshop. The majority (92%) rated the PFPCWs as worthwhile. Participants valued the discussion and self-reflection components. Afterward, 23% reported that their attitudes toward caring for people with unintended pregnancy changed to feeling more comfortable. Participants said they would employ self-reflection and empathy in future challenging interactions. DISCUSSION: In this pilot implementation study, our workshop provided learners with strategies for patient-centered care in challenging family planning patient interactions. We are currently modifying the workshop and evaluation program based on feedback.

COVID-19's impact on contraception experiences: Exacerbation of structural inequities in women's health.

INTRODUCTION: Structural inequities may impact the relationship between COVID-19 and access to contraception. METHODS: In July 2020 and January 2021, we used social media to survey 2 samples of women of reproductive age who had not been surgically sterilized and were not currently pregnant about their experiences seeking contraception. We explore whether experiences differed for people experiencing social and/or economic disadvantage due to COVID-19, using multivariable logistic regression to control for age, education and income. RESULTS: In July 2020, 51.5% of respondents who sought contraception (total N = 3064) reported barriers to care compared to 55.3% in January 2021 (total N = 2276). A larger percent (14% in July 2020 and 22% in Jan 2021) reported not using their preferred method of contraception due to COVID-19. Individuals experiencing income loss (OR = 1.61, 95% CI 1.27-2.04 early in the COVID-19 pandemic and OR = 1.58, 1.21-2.06 mid COVID-19 pandemic) and hunger (OR = 1.73, 1.24-2.40 early and OR = 2.02, 1.55-2.64 mid-COVID-19 pandemic) were more likely to report they would be using a different method if not for COVID-19, compared to respondents without income loss or hunger. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has complicated access to contraception, especially for disadvantaged populations. IMPLICATIONS: Efforts are needed to ensure access to contraception despite the COVID-19 epidemic, especially for disadvantaged populations.