"I Went Into This Field to Empower Other People, and I Feel Like I Failed": Residents Experience Moral Distress Post-Dobbs.

Background The 2022 Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization nullified the constitutional right to abortion, which led to effective bans in at least 14 US states and placed obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) residents in dilemmas where they may have to withhold care, potentially causing moral distress-a health care workforce phenomenon less understood among resident physicians. Objective To identify and explore moral distress experienced by OB/GYN residents due to care restrictions post-Dobbs. Methods In 2023, we invited OB/GYN residents, identified by their program directors, training in states with restricted abortion access, to participate in one-on-one, semi-structured interviews via Zoom about their experiences caring for patients post-Dobbs. We used thematic analysis to analyze interview data. Results Twenty-one residents described their experiences of moral distress due to restrictions. We report on 3 themes in their accounts related to moral distress (and 4 subthemes): (1) challenges to their physician identity (inability to do the job, internalized distress, and reconsidering career choices); (2) participating in care that exacerbates inequities (and erodes patient trust); and (3) determination to advocate for and provide abortion care in the future. Conclusions OB/GYN residents grappled with moral distress and identified challenges from abortion restrictions.

Influence of a values clarification workshop on residents training at Catholic Hospital programs.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate if a values clarification workshop conducted at Catholic hospital training programs influenced obstetrics and gynecology residents' abortion attitudes. STUDY DESIGN: Between 2018 and 2019, we provided a values clarification workshop focused on abortion care to 47 obstetrics and gynecology residents at five Catholic programs that do not provide abortion training. Participants received a pre-survey eliciting participant characteristics, and training experiences. On pre- and post-surveys, we asked participants to respond to abortion scenarios using a five-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = strongly agree). We calculated descriptive frequencies, report the proportions agreeing with the statements (Likert ≥ 4) before and after the workshop, and compared median Likert responses using Wilcoxon matched pair test. RESULTS: Forty-one participants (87%) completed both surveys. Twelve (29%) reported Catholic religion, six (15%) reported their personal reproductive care views were in line with their institution, and five (12%) selected their program based on its religious affiliation. Three (9%) had experience with first-trimester abortion for nonmedical reasons, and 20 (49%) planned to provide such care after graduation. Both before and after the workshop, all participants could think of a justification why a patient with an undesired pregnancy would choose abortion. After the workshop, more residents were able to think of a justifiable reason for the following abortion-related scenarios: (1) patients declining post-abortal contraception (51% vs. 78%, p < 0.001), (2) patients presenting for subsequent abortion (93% vs 95%, p = 0.01), and (3) patients presenting for second-trimester abortion (93% vs. 100%, p = 0.001). Many participants increased their Likert score when asked about acceptability of patients declining post-abortal contraception (n = 24, 59%), patients seeking a subsequent abortion (n = 15, 37%), and patients obtaining a second trimester abortion contraception (n = 11, 27%). Emotional and professional reactions to these scenarios were unchanged. After the workshop, residents were more likely to consider either financial inability (73% vs. 83%, p < 0.01) or disruption to career or education (71% vs 80%, p < 0.01) as morally acceptable reasons for requesting an abortion. For abortion for a patient who is financially unable to support their child, 12 (29%) increased their Likert score, 1 (2%) had a lower score and the remaining 28 (68%) had no change. For abortion for a patient whose career or education would be disrupted 13 (32%) increased their Likert score, one (2%) had a lower score and the remaining 27 (66%) had no change. CONCLUSION: Our values clarification workshop resulted in more residents at Catholic training programs endorsing accepting attitudes toward abortion patient scenarios. Values clarification exercises can be a useful tool for residents to discuss abortion care, especially when training is insufficient. IMPLICATIONS: Most obstetrics and gynecology residents at Catholic hospitals experience limited training in abortion care. A values clarification workshop conducted at such programs may result in increasing resident acceptance of abortion-related patient care scenarios and may help reduce abortion stigma.