Termination counseling among US perinatal genetic counselors in the setting of second trimester fetal anomalies.

Many pregnant people learn of fetal anomalies in the second trimester and subsequently present to prenatal genetic counselors (PGCs) for counseling, including but not limited to a nuanced discussion about whether to continue or terminate pregnancy. In those who choose to terminate, the decision between dilation and evacuation (D&E) or induction is often one of patient preference and as such, is heavily influenced by the quality of counseling received. PGCs are expertly trained to provide values-based counseling, yet little is known about their termination counseling practices, referral practice patterns, and perceived responsibilities in caring for this group of pregnant people. To gain this knowledge, we surveyed a national sample of PGCs in early 2022 and received 70 completed responses. The survey contained open- and closed-ended questions. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and free response data were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Eighty percent (n = 56) of respondents reported that <50% of their patients had previously received termination options counseling. Most strikingly, 15% of respondents provided termination counseling that was beyond their self-identified comfort level. Scenario-based questions assessed respondents' counseling practice patterns in seven real-world situations, presented in order of decreasing severity for the fetus. Respondents were 50% less likely to provide termination options counseling to patients between the most lethal to the least lethal proposed fetal anomaly. The scenario-based analysis revealed two distinct termination counseling approaches: (1) all options counseling with an explicit discussion of options to continue or terminate and (2) discretionary options counseling focused on identifying patient preferences to guide counseling and not explicitly stating all available options. This study highlights the need to ensure PGCs feel well-trained to discuss the general features of second trimester pregnancy termination and, if unable to do so, to practice in systems with timely referral to providers well-versed in the counseling about all methods of termination.

Cervical Cancer Prevention in Individuals With Criminal Legal System Involvement.

OBJECTIVES: Women with a history of criminal legal system involvement have cervical cancer rates that are 4-5 times higher than the general population-a disparity that has persisted for nearly 50 years. Our objective is to describe the intersection of mass incarceration in the United States and risk factors for cervical cancer to offer equitable prevention and treatment strategies for the field. RESULTS: A group was convened by American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology members and experts in the field to address a topic of importance relevant to cervical cancer elimination in underserved groups. This topic has received consistent attention from the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology. After convening multiple times to discuss salient issues on the topic, the group proposed 12 specific recommendations related to vaccination, screening, treatment, practice, research, and policy to address the burden of cervical cancer among individuals with criminal legal system involvement. DISCUSSION: At least 10% of the incarcerated population is at risk for cervical cancer. Clinicians in all areas of practice will encounter patients with incarceration histories or current incarceration, regularly throughout their careers. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians who provide preventive care for people at risk of cervical cancer can play a critical role in eliminating disparities for this vulnerable population, by drawing on these expert recommendations.

Incarceration Status Among Individuals Obtaining Abortion in the United States, 2020.

Objectives. To examine the abortion frequency among incarcerated people before Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization was decided. Methods. We used data from the 2020 Abortion Provider Census to examine the number and distribution of facilities that provided abortions to incarcerated patients. Results. Sixty-seven clinics across 25 states and the District of Columbia provided more than 300 abortions to incarcerated patients in 2020. Eleven of these clinics are in states that now have total or near-total abortion bans. Public Health Implications. People in jails and prisons face many structural barriers when seeking an abortion, especially with increased state abortion restrictions and an inability to travel out of state. If they cannot obtain desired care, people may be forced to continue pregnancies in harsh conditions. To address abortion access inequities, policy and research must consider incarcerated individuals. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(12):1352-1355. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307411).

Reproductive Health Care for Incarcerated People: Advancing Health Equity in Unequitable Settings.

There are over 150,000 incarcerated females in the United States. Structural inequities, including racism, adversely affect the reproductive health outcomes, autonomy, and access to care that people in custody face. This article reviews the status of reproductive health and health care among incarcerated women and describes ways that community OB/GYNs can address health inequities by providing comprehensive, compassionate care to incarcerated people, especially when they come to community settings for care while they are in custody. To address reproductive health disparities and inequities that adversely affect incarcerated individuals, community providers can implement these recommendations and also engage in advocacy.

Shackling and pregnancy care policies in US prisons and jails.

OBJECTIVES: The number of incarcerated women in the United States has risen exponentially. Many are of childbearing age with 3-4% being pregnant at intake. Despite the need for comprehensive pregnancy-related health care in prisons and jails, there is no oversight that requires adherence to the established standards. The objective of this study was to assess prison and jail pregnancy policies and practices with an emphasis on restraint use and compliance with anti-shackling legislation. METHODS: We conducted a survey of 22 state prisons and six jails, including the five largest jails, from 2016-2017 regarding pregnancy policies and practices including restraint use, prenatal care, delivery and birth, and other pregnancy accommodations. We compared reported restraint policies to state legislation at the time of the survey. RESULTS: Data indicate that pregnancy policies and services in prisons and jails vary and compliance inconsistencies with anti-shackling legislation exist. A third of the prisons and half of the jails did not have accredited health care services. All study facilities provided prenatal vitamins and most provided supplemental snacks. Most facilities stationed an officer inside the hospital room during labor and delivery, but nearly one-third of facilities did not require a female-identifying officer. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Limited oversight and standardization of carceral health care and accommodations for pregnant people lead to variability in prisons and jails. Prisons and jails should adopt and implement standards of care guidelines to ensure the safety and well-being of pregnant people who have unique healthcare needs. Incarcerated pregnant people should be viewed as expectant parents in need of comprehensive health care, rather than as criminals who forfeited their right to a safe, respectful, and humane childbirth.

Complicity Consciousness: The Dual Practice of Ethnography and Clinical Caregiving in Carceral Settings.

Anthropologist-clinicians who engage in both ethnographic inquiry and clinical practice confront methodological, ethical, and epistemological predicaments that can challenge and enhance the moral practice and ethics of care inherent both to healing and to ethnography. Clinician-ethnographers often find themselves practicing within harmful systems that they also critique, such as hospitals or carceral institutions. This paper analyzes the dual practice of obstetrical care and ethnography in a county jail and a county hospital. These intertwined roles involve wrestling with sometimes conflicting vocational and ethical obligations to heal, to protect privacy, to address bodily consequences of systemic oppressions, and to critique the systems that mete human suffering. Developing a consciousness of clinical-ethnographers' complicity, rather than disavowing it, can be aligned with approaches of abolition medicine to reimagine more just forms of healing.

Care for Incarcerated Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped health care delivery for all patients but has distinctly affected the most marginalized people in society. Incarcerated patients are both more likely to be infected and more likely to die from COVID-19. There is a paucity of guidance for the care of incarcerated patients hospitalized with COVID-19. This article will discuss how patient privacy, adequate communication, and advance care planning are rights that incarcerated patients may not experience during this pandemic. We highlight the role of compassionate release and note how COVID-19 may affect this prospect. A number of pragmatic recommendations are made to attenuate the discrepancy in hospital care experienced by those admitted from prisons and jails. Physicians must be familiar with the relevant hospital policies, be prepared to adapt their practices in order to overcome barriers to care, such as continuous shackling, and advocate to change these policies when they conflict with patient care. Stigma, isolation, and concerns over staff safety are shared experiences for COVID-19 and incarcerated patients, but incarcerated patients have been experiencing this treatment long before the current pandemic. It is crucial that the internist demand the equitable care that we seek for all our patients.

Health care and social justice implications of incarceration for pregnant people who use drugs.

The experiences of and care for pregnant, incarcerated people with substance use disorders represent a convergence of numerous clinical, historical, racialized, legal, and gendered factors. Understanding how these forces shape how they became enmeshed in the criminal legal system as well as the context of the care they do or do not receive while in custody is essential for promoting equitable maternal health care. In this review, we describe the prevalence of SUD among pregnant people behind bars, the health care landscape of incarceration, access to treatment for opioid use disorder for incarcerated pregnant and postpartum people, and nuances of providing such treatment in an inherently coercive setting. Throughout, we highlight the ways that the child welfare system and mass incarceration in the U.S. have had a unique and discriminatory impact on pregnant and parenting people, and have done so in distinctly racialized ways. Situating the clinical care of incarcerated pregnant people who use drugs in this context sheds light on fundamental social justice and health care intersections.

Reproductive Justice Disrupted: Mass Incarceration as a Driver of Reproductive Oppression.

We describe how mass incarceration directly undermines the core values of reproductive justice and how this affects incarcerated and nonincarcerated women.Mass incarceration, by its very nature, compromises and undermines bodily autonomy and the capacity for incarcerated people to make decisions about their reproductive well-being and bodies; this is done through institutionalized racism and is disproportionately done to the bodies of women of color. This violates the most basic tenets of reproductive justice-the right to have a child, not to have a child, and to parent the children you have with dignity and in safety.By undermining motherhood and safe pregnancy care, denying access to abortion and contraception, and preventing people from parenting their children at all and by doing so in overpoliced, unsafe environments, mass incarceration has become a driver of forms of reproductive oppression for people in prison and jails and in the community.

Stigma and US Nurses' Intentions to Provide the Standard of Maternal Care to Incarcerated Women, 2017.

Objectives. To examine relationships among actionable drivers and facilitators of stigma and nurses' intentions to provide the standard of maternal care recommended by the Association of Women's Health, Obstetric, and Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN) for incarcerated women.Methods. We conducted a Web-based survey of perinatal nurses in the United States (n = 665; participation rate 98.0%; completion rate 95.3%) in July through September 2017. We used multivariable logistic regression to predict higher than median intentions to provide the standard of care.Results. Lower stigmatizing individual attitudes and institutional norms and higher perceived autonomy when caring for an incarcerated woman were significantly associated with higher care intentions. Knowledge of the AWHONN position statement on the standard of care or their own state's shackling laws was not associated with higher care intentions.Conclusions. We documented significant associations among actionable drivers and facilitators of stigma and the intentions of a key health care provider group to deliver the standard of maternal care to incarcerated women. Individual- and institutional-level stigma-reduction interventions may increase the quality of maternal care and improve perinatal outcomes for women who give birth while incarcerated.

Pregnancy Outcomes in US Prisons, 2016-2017.

OBJECTIVES: To collect national data on pregnancy frequencies and outcomes among women in US state and federal prisons. METHODS: From 2016 to 2017, we prospectively collected 12 months of pregnancy statistics from a geographically diverse sample of 22 state prison systems and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Prisons reported numbers of pregnant women, births, miscarriages, abortions, and other outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 1396 pregnant women were admitted to prisons; 3.8% of newly admitted women and 0.6% of all women were pregnant in December 2016. There were 753 live births (92% of outcomes), 46 miscarriages (6%), 11 abortions (1%), 4 stillbirths (0.5%), 3 newborn deaths, and no maternal deaths. Six percent of live births were preterm and 30% were cesarean deliveries. Distributions of outcomes varied by state. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that the majority of prison pregnancies ended in live births or miscarriages. Our findings can enable policymakers, researchers, and public health practitioners to optimize health outcomes for incarcerated pregnant women and their newborns, whose health has broad sociopolitical implications.

What Women Want: A Qualitative Study of Contraception in Jail.

OBJECTIVES: We undertook this study to understand women's perceptions of receiving contraception at Rikers Island Jail. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews in 2011 to 2012 with 32 women incarcerated at Rikers Island Jail. We analyzed the data using standard qualitative techniques. RESULTS: Almost all participants believed that contraception should be provided at the jail. However, many said they would hesitate to use these services themselves. Reservations were caused in part by women's negative views of health care services at the jail. Fears about the safety of birth control, difficulties associated with follow-up in the community, and desire for pregnancy were other factors that influenced interest in accepting contraception. CONCLUSIONS: Contraception at the jail must be provided by trusted medical providers delivering high quality care with the goal of allowing women to control their own fertility; this would ensure that women could access birth control and cease using birth control when desired.

"Doctor, Why Didn't You Adopt My Baby?" Observant Participation, Care, and the Simultaneous Practice of Medicine and Anthropology.

Medical anthropology has long appreciated the clinical encounter as a rich source of data and a key site for critical inquiry. It is no surprise, then, that a number of physician-anthropologists have used their clinical insights to make important contributions to the field. How does this duality challenge and enhance the moral practice and ethics of care inherent both to ethnography and to medicine? How do bureaucratic and professional obligations of HIPAA and the IRB intersect with aspirations of anthropology to understand human experience and of medicine to heal with compassion? In this paper, I describe my simultaneous fieldwork and clinical practice at an urban women's jail in the United States. In this setting, being a physician facilitates privileged access to people and spaces within, garners easy trust, and enables an insider perspective more akin to observant participation than participant observation. Through experiences of delivering the infants of incarcerated pregnant women and of being with the mothers as they navigate drug addiction, child custody battles, and re-incarceration, the roles of doctor and anthropologist become mutually constitutive and transformative. Moreover, the dual practice reveals congruities and cracks in each discipline's ethics of care. Being an anthropologist among informants who may have been patients reworks expectations of care and necessitates ethical practice informed by the dual roles.

Testing for sexually transmitted infections at intrauterine device insertion: an evidence-based approach.

This article reviews evidence to guide safe and cost-effective testing for asymptomatic Neisseria gonorrhea and Chlamydia trachomatis infection before inserting intrauterine devices (IUDs). All women should be screened with a history and pelvic examination before IUD insertion, but only high-risk women need a laboratory test; this includes women aged 25 years or younger with no test within the last year, and women with additional behavioral risk factors. If testing is indicated, it should be done on the same day as insertion not a separate visit. Women with positive test results should be treated as soon as results are available.

Impact of new abortion restrictions on people in prison: Estimated number of incarcerated people without abortion access and distance to abortion providers.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to estimate the annual number of incarcerated pregnant people in state and federal prisons needing an abortion. STUDY DESIGN: We used 2021 Bureau of Justice Statistics data and prior studies' findings to estimate the number of pregnant incarcerated people, then calculated state-specific abortion ratios to determine the number potentially needing an abortion. RESULTS: Of 638 pregnant people incarcerated in prisons annually, 110 would be expected to need an abortion, including 55 in states where abortion is currently banned or restricted. CONCLUSIONS: Under Dobbs, many incarcerated pregnant people will be forced to continue unwanted pregnancies to term.

Development and evaluation of measures to assess self-determination in peripartum contraceptive decision-making.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to adapt and validate person-centered measures to evaluate various contributors to self-determination in perinatal contraceptive decision-making. STUDY DESIGN: We developed and administered four scales adapted from existing measures in the context of Self-Determination Theory: the Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire (TSRQ), Perceived Competence Scale, modified Health Care Climate Questionnaire, and Important Other Climate Questionnaire. The TSRQ consists of three subscales: autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, and amotivation. We recruited a nonprobability convenience sample of 300 hospitalized postpartum patients in Baltimore, MD, between 2015 and 2016 and administered surveys in English and Spanish. We validated the scales with Cronbach's alpha coefficients, confirmatory factor analysis, and invariance analysis. We examined construct validity by testing correlations between the scales and other person-centered measures, such as satisfaction with counseling. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha was >0.8 except for the amotivation subscale. Confirmatory factor analysis was adequate for all scales. Autonomous motivation correlated positively and significantly with perceived competence, health care provider autonomy support, important other autonomy support, and other measures of patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: We found the four scales to be internally consistent and valid except for the amotivation subscale. We recommend using the autonomous motivation subscale in place of the full TSRQ. The autonomous motivation subscale, Perceived Competence Scale, modified Health Care Climate Questionnaire, and Important Other Climate Questionnaire showed adequate internal consistency, construct validity, and adherence to the expected conceptual structure of the scales. IMPLICATIONS: Autonomous decision-making is central to ethics and quality of care, especially for contraceptive methods that require a provider for initiation or discontinuation and at more vulnerable times, such as postpartum and postabortion. These scales may help tailor person-centered and autonomy-supportive interventions and programs to improve contraceptive counseling and care delivery.

"It's different than a doctor saying 'You're making the right choice'": A qualitative study of chaplains' experience caring for patients undergoing abortion in Washington DC, Maryland, and Virginia.

OBJECTIVES: Health care chaplains are faith providers with theological education, pastoral experience, and clinical training who provide spiritual care to patients, their families, and medical staff. This study sought to characterize chaplains' experiences providing spiritual care for patients experiencing abortion and pregnancy loss and to explore how chaplains gain competency and comfort in providing pastoral care for this patient population. STUDY DESIGN: Researchers conducted in-depth, semistructured, qualitative interviews with currently-practicing chaplains recruited via convenience sampling in the Washington DC, Maryland, and Virginia region. We analyzed interviews using directed content analysis and coded using both inductive and deductive coding. RESULTS: We interviewed 13 chaplains. The majority were Protestant and identified as Democrats. Participants often personally struggled with the acceptability of abortion but emphasized the importance of spiritual care for this patient population. They recognized that religious stigma regarding abortion prevented referrals to chaplaincy. Though desiring to contribute, chaplains reported little formal education in pregnancy support counseling. They relied on foundational pastoral care skills, like holding space, values clarification, connecting with patients' spirituality, words of comfort, ritualistic memorialization, and resource provision. All desired more training specific to abortion and pregnancy loss in chaplaincy education. CONCLUSIONS: Chaplains from varied faith backgrounds have a diverse set of skills to support patients experiencing abortion or pregnancy loss, but feel underutilized and lacking in formal training. Though not all patients require pastoral support, chaplains can be critical members of the care team, particularly for those patients experiencing spiritual distress. IMPLICATIONS: Chaplains have a paucity of training in supporting patients experiencing abortion and pregnancy loss. Chaplains want to be involved with patients experiencing abortion but feel excluded by both patients and practitioners. Standardization of pastoral care training is important to ensure adequate spiritual support for patients who desire such services.