No Strings Attached: How Catholic Institutions Prospered at the Expense of the Administrative State and Patient Autonomy.

Catholic hospitals and health systems have proliferated and succeeded in American healthcare; they now operate four of the largest health systems and serve nearly one in six hospital patients. Like other religious entities that Wuest and Last write about in this issue, in their article Church Against State, they have benefited by and supported the long reach of conservative efforts to undermine the administrative state.

Beyond Hobby Lobby: Employer's responsibilities and opportunities to improve network access to reproductive healthcare for employees.

The majority of United States (US) women age 15-49 have employer-sponsored health insurance, but these insurance plans fall short if employees cannot find providers who meet reproductive health needs. Employers could and should do more to facilitate and advocate for their employees through the insurance plans they sponsor. We conducted interviews with 14 key informants to understand how large United States employers see their role in health insurance benefits, especially when it comes to reproductive health care access and restrictions in religious health systems. Our findings suggest that large employers wish to be responsive to their employees' health insurance priorities and have leverage to improve access to reproductive health services, but they do not take sufficient action toward this end. In particular, we argue that large employers could pressure insurance carriers to address network gaps in care resulting from religious restrictions and require insurers to treat out-of-network providers like in-network providers when reproductive care is restricted.

What you don't know can hurt you: Patient and provider perspectives on postpartum contraceptive care in Illinois Catholic Hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: Catholic Religious and Ethical Directives restrict access to contraception; yet offering contraception during a delivery hospitalization facilitates birth spacing and is a convenient option for patients during the postpartum period. We assessed patient and provider experiences with hospital transparency around postpartum contraceptive care in Illinois Catholic Hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: We interviewed 44 participants with experience in Illinois Catholic Hospitals: 21 patients, and 23 providers, including clinicians, nurses, doulas, and postpartum program staff. We used an open-ended interview approach, with a semistructured guide focused on postpartum contraceptive care. We conducted interviews by phone between November 2019 and June 2020. We audio-recorded interviews, transcribed them verbatim, and coded transcripts in Dedoose. We developed narrative memos for each code, identifying themes and subthemes. We organized these in a matrix for analysis and present here themes regarding hospital transparency that emerged across interviews. RESULTS: Many patients knew they were delivering in a Catholic hospital; however, few were aware that Catholic policies limited their health care options. Patients expressed a desire for hospitals to be transparent, even "very vocal," about religious restrictions and described consequences of restrictions on patient care. Patients lacked information to make contraceptive decisions, experienced limits on or delays in care, and some lost continuity with trusted providers. Consequences for providers included moral distress in trying to provide care using workarounds such as documenting false medical diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Religious restrictions on postpartum contraception restrict access, cause unnecessary delays in care, and lead to misdiagnosis and marginalization of contraceptive care. Restrictions also cause moral distress to providers who balance career repercussions and professional integrity with patient needs. IMPLICATIONS: To protect patient autonomy, especially during the vulnerable postpartum period, Catholic hospitals should increase transparency regarding limitations on reproductive health care. Insurers and policy-makers should guarantee that patients have the option to receive care at hospitals without these limitations and facilitate public education about what to expect at Catholic facilities.

"Going through it together": Being accompanied by loved ones during birth and abortion.

We sought to understand the meaning people who have given birth and have had an abortion ascribe to being accompanied by partners, family members and friends during these reproductive experiences. Incorporating this knowledge into clinical practice may contribute to improving the quality of these services, especially in abortion care, in which loved ones are often excluded. The study took place in Northern California in 2014. We conducted semi-structured, intensive interviews with twenty cis-women about their birth and abortion experiences and analyzed their narratives with respect to accompaniment using grounded theory. The roles of loved ones were complementary yet distinct to those of medical personnel. They were also multifaceted. Participants needed familiar individuals to bear witness, share the emotional experience and provide protection from perceived or possible harm associated with medical care. In some cases, more often in the context of abortion than childbirth, participants shielded their loved ones from emotional burdens of the reproductive process. Some pregnant people of color faced gendered racism, which also influenced their accompaniment needs. Male partners played a distinct role of upholding dominant social ideals related to pregnancy. As is commonplace in birth-related care, abortion services could be formally structured to include partners, family members and friends when desired by pregnant people to improve their experiences. Such integration should be balanced with considerations for privacy, safety and institutional resources. Working toward this goal may reduce structural abortion stigma and help alleviate pregnant people's burdens associated with reproduction.

Reproductive healthcare denials among a privately insured population.

This study aimed to quantify and examine reproductive healthcare denials experienced by individuals receiving employer-sponsored health insurance. We conducted a national cross-sectional survey using probability and non-probability-based panels from December 2019-January 2020. Eligible respondents were adults employed by any Standard and Poor's 500 company, who received employer-sponsored health insurance. Respondents (n = 1,001) reported whether anyone on their healthcare plan had been denied a reproductive healthcare service in the past five years and details about their denials. We conducted bivariate analyses and multiple logistic regression to estimate factors associated with denials. Eleven percent of respondents (14% of women; 10% of men) reported a denial. Compared to lower-income respondents, those with income ≥ $50,000/year were less likely to experience a denial (aOR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.29-0.97). Compared to respondents who were never married, being married (aOR = 2.33; 95% CI: 1.03-5.30) or cohabiting (aOR = 2.43; 95% CI: 1.03-5.72) significantly increased odds of experiencing a denial. In 38% of cases the patient learned of the denial at a scheduled visit, while 23% learned in an emergency setting, and 13% after the encounter. Individuals covered by employer-sponsored health insurance continue to be denied coverage of preventive services. Employers and insurers can facilitate access to reproductive healthcare by ensuring that their plans include comprehensive coverage and in-network providers offer comprehensive services.

Expectations about availability of contraception and abortion at a hypothetical Catholic hospital: Rural-urban disparities among Wisconsin women.

OBJECTIVE: To examine rural-urban differences in reproductive-aged Wisconsin women's expectations for contraceptive and abortion care at a hypothetical Catholic hospital. STUDY DESIGN: Between October 2019 and April 2020, we fielded a 2-stage, cross-sectional survey to Wisconsin women aged 18 to 45, oversampling rural census tracts and rural counties served by Catholic sole community hospitals. We presented a vignette about a hypothetical Catholic-named hospital; among participants perceiving it as Catholic, we conducted multivariable analyses predicting expectations for contraceptive services (birth control pills, Depo-Provera, intrauterine device or implant, tubal ligation) and abortion in the case of serious fetal indications. RESULTS: The response rate was 37.6% for the screener and 83.4% for the survey (N = 675). Among respondents (N = 376) perceiving the hospital as Catholic, expecting the full range of contraceptive methods was more common among rural (70.9%) vs urban (46.7%) participants (adjusted odds ratio = 3.99, 95% confidence interval: 1.99-7.99). In adjusted models, odds of expecting each contraceptive method were at least 3 times greater among rural vs urban participants. About one-third expected provision of abortion for serious fetal indications, with no difference by rurality (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In Wisconsin, rural women were more likely than urban women to expect a hypothetical Catholic hospital to provide the full range of contraceptive methods as well as each method individually. Disparities were especially large for tubal ligation and long-acting reversible contraceptives-methods that other studies suggest are least-likely to be available in Catholic healthcare settings-which may indicate a mismatch between patients' expectations and service availability. IMPLICATIONS: Many reproductive-aged Wisconsin women-especially in rural areas-hold misperceptions about availability of reproductive care in Catholic hospitals. Policies mandating greater transparency in service restrictions and interventions enabling patients to make informed decisions about care may help connect patients to the care they need more quickly.

Prevalence and experiences of Wisconsin women turned away from Catholic settings without receiving reproductive care.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate prevalence of being turned away from a Catholic healthcare setting without receiving desired reproductive care among Wisconsin women and to document firsthand accounts of these experiences. STUDY DESIGN: Between October 2019 and April 2020, we fielded a two-stage survey to Wisconsin women aged 18-45, oversampling rural census tracts and rural counties served by Catholic sole community hospitals. We present prevalence of ever being turned away from a Catholic hospital or clinic without receiving desired contraceptive or fertility care and document accounts of referrals, perceived barriers, and wait times to acquire services elsewhere. RESULTS: The screener response rate was 37.6% (N = 828) and the survey response rate was 83.4% (N = 675). While only 23 (2.0%) of Wisconsin women had ever been turned away from a Catholic hospital or clinic without receiving desired contraceptive or fertility care (95% confidence interval: 1.2%-3.5%), these experiences were more common among women in counties served by Catholic sole community hospitals (n = 9, 8.1% [4.0%-15.6%]) compared to women in other rural census tracts (n = 6, 2.8% [1.3%-6.2%]) and urban census tracts (n = 8, 1.5% [0.7%-3.2%]). Sixteen (69.6%) cited religious restrictions as a barrier to accessing care. Some women - especially those denied tubal ligation - experienced long delays in acquiring time-sensitive care elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS: About 1-in-12 women in Wisconsin rural counties served by Catholic sole community hospitals reported ever being turned away from a Catholic healthcare setting without receiving desired reproductive care. After tubal ligation denials in Catholic facilities, many women faced long wait times to receive care elsewhere. IMPLICATIONS: Wisconsin women in rural counties served by Catholic sole community hospitals were about three times more likely than urban women to have ever been turned away from a Catholic facility. As Catholic healthcare expands nationally, it will be increasingly important to better understand how healthcare prohibitions influence patients' lives.

Denial of tubal ligation in religious hospitals: Consumer attitudes when insurance limits hospital choice.

OBJECTIVES: Postpartum tubal ligation provides demonstrated benefits to women, but access to this procedure is threatened by restrictions at Catholic healthcare institutions. We aimed to understand how insured employees assign responsibility for postpartum sterilization denial and how it impacts their view of the quality of care provided. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey of employees at Standard and Poor's (S&P) 500 companies utilizing a dual panel drawn from Amerispeak, a probability-based research panel, and a non-probability panel. Respondents answered questions about a scenario of a woman denied a tubal ligation due to Catholic hospital policy when her employer-sponsored insurance provided no other hospital choices. Of 1113 eligible panel members, 1001 (90%) completed the survey. Weighted analysis accounted for complex survey design. RESULTS: In response to the tubal ligation denial scenario, 42% of respondents rated hospital quality-of-care as poor or very poor. Sixty percent felt that something should have been done differently, with about half assigning responsibility to the religiously-affiliated hospital for not providing the procedure and half to the insurance company for not including secular hospitals in its network. Finding employers/insurance companies responsible was more common with higher education (RRR = 3.17; 95% CI: 1.58-6.33 some college; RRR = 4.26; 95% CI: 2.10-8.62 bachelor's or more) and less common among non-white respondents (RRR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.31-0.97). Three quarters of respondents thought the employer should have intervened. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of insured employees do not think women should be denied postpartum tubal ligation. They assign hospitals, insurers, and employers responsibility to remove barriers to care. IMPLICATIONS: Most people who receive health insurance through a large employer disapprove of Catholic hospital restrictions when the patient's insurance restricts her hospital choice. To improve access to comprehensive reproductive care, employers and insurers should assure employees have in-network coverage of hospitals without religious restrictions.

Choosing a hospital for obstetric, gynecologic, or reproductive healthcare: what matters most to patients?

BACKGROUND: Despite millions of U.S. women receiving obstetric/gynecologic or reproductive care in a hospital each year, little is known about which factors matter most to women in choosing a hospital for this care. OBJECTIVE(S): To describe women's reasons for choosing their hospital for obstetric/gynecologic or reproductive care, and to examine characteristics associated with reporting specific factors as important in hospital choice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey of women aged 18-45 years. The 2016 survey recruited women from AmeriSpeak, a probability-based research panel. A total of 1430 women completed the survey. All data analysis used weighting and accounted for the complex survey design. We conducted bivariate and multinomial logistic regression modeling to assess associations. RESULTS: Three-fourths of women cited a hospital's overall reputation/quality as a reason, and one-third named this as the most important reason for choosing a hospital. A total of 14% reported hospital religious affiliation as a reason. Compared to those with no prior deliveries, women who had delivered an infant were more likely to report that their top reason was specialty services/provider (relative risk ratio, 2.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.96-4.52) and were also more likely to report overall hospital quality/reputation as their top reason (relative risk ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.17), compared to logistical reasons. Metropolitan versus non-metropolitan residence was also a significant factor in hospital choice. CONCLUSION: Women endorse many factors when choosing a hospital for reproductive care, but perceived quality and reputation outweigh logistical concerns such as location and insurance.

Chilean Medical and Midwifery Faculty's Views on Conscientious Objection for Abortion Services.

CONTEXT: In 2017, Chile reformed its abortion law to allow the procedure under limited circumstances. Exploring the views of Chilean medical and midwifery faculty regarding abortion and the use of conscientious objection (CO) at the time of reform can inform how these topics are being taught to the country's future health care providers. METHODS: Between March and September 2017, 30 medical and midwifery school faculty from universities in Santiago, Chile were interviewed; 20 of the faculty taught at secular universities and 10 taught at religiously affiliated universities. Faculty perspectives on CO and abortion, the scope of CO, and teaching about CO and abortion were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Most faculty at secular and religiously affiliated universities supported the rights of clinicians to refuse to provide abortion care. Secular-university faculty generally thought that CO should be limited to specific providers and rejected the idea of institutional CO, whereas religious-university faculty strongly supported the use of CO by a broad range of providers and at the institutional level. Only secular-university faculty endorsed the idea that CO should be regulated so that it does not hinder access to abortion care. CONCLUSIONS: The broader support for CO in abortion among religious-university faculty raises concerns about whether students are being taught their ethical responsibility to put the needs of their patients above their own. Future research should monitor whether Chile's CO regulations and practices are guaranteeing people's access to abortion care.

RESUMEN Contexto: En 2017, Chile reformó su ley de aborto para permitir el procedimiento bajo circunstancias limitadas. Explorar las opiniones del personal académico de medicina y partería en relación con el aborto y el uso de la objeción de conciencia (OC) en el momento de la reforma, puede informar sobre los temas que están siendo enseñados a los futuros prestadores de servicios de salud del país. Métodos: Entre marzo y septiembre de 2017, fueron entrevistados 30 miembros del personal académico de las facultades de medicina y partería de universidades en Santiago, Chile. Veinte de ellos enseñaban en universidades laicas y diez en universidades con afiliación religiosa. Se analizaron las perspectivas del personal académico sobre la OC y el aborto, el alcance de la OC, y la enseñanza sobre OC y aborto, mediante el uso de un enfoque de teoría fundamentada. Resultados: La mayoría del personal académico de las universidades laicas y de las de afiliación religiosa apoyó el derecho del personal clínico a rehusarse a proveer servicios de aborto. En general, el personal académico de las universidades laicas pensó que la OC debería limitarse a proveedores de servicios específicos y rechazó la idea de una OC institucional, mientras que el personal académico de las universidades con afiliación religiosa apoyó decididamente el uso de la OC por un amplio conjunto de proveedores y a nivel institucional. Solamente el personal académico de las universidades laicas avaló la idea de que la OC debería ser regulada de tal forma que no obstaculizara el acceso a los servicios de aborto. Conclusions: El amplio apoyo a la OC en relación con el aborto en el personal académico de las universidades con afiliación religiosa genera preocupaciones sobre si se está enseñando a los estudiantes sobre su responsabilidad ética de poner las necesidades de sus pacientes por encima de las propias. Futuras investigaciones deben monitorear si las reglamentaciones y prácticas en materia de OC en Chile están garantizando el acceso de las personas a los servicios de aborto.

RÉSUMÉ Contexte: En 2017, le Chili a réformé sa législation de l'avortement, autorisant l'intervention dans des circonstances limitées. Létude de l'opinion du corps professoral des facultés de médecine et des écoles de sages-femmes concernant l'avortement et le recours à l'objection de conscience (OC) au moment de la réforme peut éclairer la manière dont ces sujets sont enseignés aux futurs prestataires de soins de santé du pays. Méthodes: Entre mars et septembre 2017, 30 professeurs et enseignants de facultés et écoles de médecine et de sages-femmes à Santiago (Chili) ont été interviewés; 20 enseignaient dans des universités laïques et 10, dans des universités de confession religieuse. Leurs points de vue sur l'OC et l'avortement, la portée de l'OC et l'enseignement relatif à l'OC et à l'avortement ont été analysés selon l'approche de la théorie ancrée. Résultats: Pour la plupart, le corps professoral des universités laïques et de confession religieuse reconnaissait le droit des cliniciens à refuser la prestation de soins d'avortement. Les professeurs d'universités laïques estimaient généralement que l'OC devrait être limitée à certains prestataires spécifiques et rejetaient la notion de l'OC institutionnelle, alors que ceux des facultés et écoles de confession religieuse soutenaient fermement le recours à l'OC par un large éventail de prestataires et au niveau institutionnel. Seul le corps professoral laïc souscrivait à l'idée que l'OC doit être réglementée de manière à ne pas entraver l'accès aux soins d'avortement. Conclusions: Le soutien plus large de l'OC à l'avortement parmi le corps professoral d'universités de confession religieuse soulève des questions quant à savoir si les étudiants sont sensibilisés à leur responsabilité éthique de faire passer les besoins de leurs patientes avant les leurs. La recherche future devra surveiller si la réglementation et la pratique de l'OC au Chili garantissent l'accès aux soins d'avortement.

The Fine Line Between Informing and Coercing: Community Health Center Clinicians' Approaches to Counseling Young People About IUDs.

CONTEXT: While community health centers (CHCs) are meeting increased demand for contraceptives, little is known about contraceptive counseling in these settings. Understanding how clinicians counsel about IUDs in CHCs, including whether they address or disregard young people's preferences and concerns during counseling, could improve contraceptive care. METHODS: As part of a training program, 20 clinicians from 11 San Francisco Bay Area CHC sites who counsel young people about contraception were interviewed by telephone in 2015 regarding their IUD counseling approaches. An iterative grounded theory approach was used to analyze interview transcripts and identify salient themes related to clinicians' contraceptive counseling, IUD removal practices and efforts to address patient concerns regarding side effects. RESULTS: Most clinicians offered comprehensive contraceptive counseling and method choice. While several clinicians viewed counseling as an opportunity to empower their patients to make contraceptive decisions without pressure, they also described a tension between guiding young people toward higher-efficacy methods and respecting patients' choices. Many clinicians engaged in what could be considered coercive practices by trying to dissuade patients from removals within a year of placement and offering to treat or downplay side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Providers try to promote their young patients' autonomous decision making, but their support for high-efficacy methods can result in coercive practices. More training is needed to ensure that providers employ patient-centered counseling approaches, including honoring patient requests for removals.

Anticipatory Counseling About Miscarriage Management in Catholic Hospitals: A Qualitative Exploration of Women's Preferences.

CONTEXT: Catholic hospitals represent a large and growing segment of U.S. health care. Because these facilities follow doctrines that restrict reproductive health services, including miscarriage management options when a fetal heartbeat is present, it is critical to understand whether and how women would want to learn about miscarriage treatment restrictions from providers. METHODS: From May 2018 to January 2019, semistructured interviews were conducted with 31 women aged 21-44 who had had exposure to religious-based health care; all were drawn from a nationally representative survey sample. Participants responded to a hypothetical scenario regarding the anticipatory disclosure of miscarriage management policy during routine prenatal care. Responses were inductively coded and thematically analyzed using modified grounded theory to understand women's attitudes and considerations related to receiving anticipatory miscarriage management information. RESULTS: Respondents supported the routine disclosure of miscarriage management policies during prenatal care. Some expressed concern that this might increase patient anxiety during pregnancy, but most felt that the information would serve to prepare and empower patients, and likened the topic to other anticipatory health information provided during prenatal care. Identified themes related to how providers can disclose this information (including the need for a precautionary framing to reduce patient stress), sharing the rationale for institutional policy, and the importance of provider neutrality to ensure patient autonomy. CONCLUSIONS: To respect patient autonomy, health care providers working in Catholic hospitals should routinely discuss institutional miscarriage management policies with patients, and anticipatory counseling should give patients the balanced information they need to decide where to go for care should pregnancy complications arise.

Restrictions on Reproductive Care at Catholic Hospitals: A Qualitative Study of Patient Experiences and Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that many women who would seek care at Catholic hospitals are unaware of the hospital's religious affiliation. Furthermore, women often do not realize that these institutions operate according to religious beliefs that restrict access to certain reproductive services. Our study aimed to gain patient perspectives on experiences seeking reproductive care at religiously affiliated institutions. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using in-depth interviews with 33 women who reported experiences seeking reproductive services at Catholic hospitals. Interview questions focused on women's experiences with religious restrictions, their attitudes towards religious healthcare, and whether and how they think women should be informed of these restrictions. Interviews were thematically analyzed using Dedoose software, applying both a priori concepts such as patient autonomy, informed decision making, and transparency, as well as new concepts that emerged from the data or denoted unanticipated distinctions within codes. RESULTS: In this paper, we present three findings. First, women value both patient autonomy and hospital religious freedom. Struggling to reconcile these, many blamed themselves for not anticipating religious restrictions. Second, barriers to information prevent women from researching restrictions ahead of time. Third, women would like more information about these restrictions from both doctors and hospitals. CONCLUSION: Public policy that regulates hospitals should require transparency from hospitals and physicians about religious restrictions on care. Informing the public about religious policies and how they affect reproductive care will allow patients to better anticipate differences and make informed decisions about where to seek care.

Abortion Policies in U.S. Teaching Hospitals: Formal and Informal Parameters Beyond the Law.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence and features of policies regulating abortion in U.S. teaching hospitals. METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, we conducted a national survey of obstetrics and gynecology teaching hospitals (2015-2016) and qualitative interviews (2014 and 2017) with directors at obstetrics and gynecology residency programs. We asked participants about hospital regulations on abortion and their perceptions of the nature and enforcement of these policies. Interview analysis was conducted with a grounded theoretical approach and informed development of the survey. The prevalence of policies was described using survey data; differences in policy structures by region were analyzed using a series of logistic regression models. RESULTS: Directors from 169 of 231 eligible training programs responded to the survey (73%). Institutional policies limited abortion beyond state law in 57% of teaching hospitals, most commonly in the Midwest and South (odds ratio [OR] 4.3, P<.01 for Midwest; OR 4.0, P=.001 for South vs Northeast). Policies varied in form (written and unwritten) and restricted abortion based on the indication for the procedure and gestational age. Nonmedically indicated, or "elective" procedures were more commonly restricted (48% of sites reporting any policy and 25% prohibiting these abortions altogether) than medically indicated ones (28% of sites reporting any policy.) Policies were created by those with institutional power, including hospital leadership and obstetrics and gynecology department chairs, and were perceived to be motivated by personal beliefs and a desire to avoid controversy. Rules were commonly enforced by medical specialists, hospital ethics committees, and department chairs. Qualitative data highlighted the convoluted nuances of these policies, which often put clinicians at odds with their professional mandates. DISCUSSION: Reportedly driven by broader institutional interests, obstetrics and gynecology teaching hospital policies often restricted abortion beyond state law to the detriment of abortion access and training opportunities. Vague or unwritten abortion policies, although difficult to navigate, gave health care providers some agency and flexibility over their practices.

Exploring young women's reasons for adopting intrauterine or oral emergency contraception in the United States: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The recent focus on increasing access to long-acting reversible contraceptive methods has often overlooked the diverse reasons why women may choose less effective methods even when significant access barriers have been removed. While the copper intrauterine device (IUD) is considered an acceptable alternative to emergency contraception pills (ECPs), it is unclear to what extent low rates of provision and use are due to patient preferences versus structural access barriers. This study explores factors that influence patients' choice between ECPs and the copper IUD as EC, including prior experiences with contraception and attitudes toward EC methods, in settings where both options are available at no cost. METHODS: We telephone-interviewed 17 patients seeking EC from three San Francisco Bay Area youth-serving clinics that offered the IUD as EC and ECPs as standard practice, regarding their experiences choosing an EC method. We thematically coded all interview transcripts, then summarized the themes related to reasons for choosing ECPs or the IUD as EC. RESULTS: Ten participants left their EC visit with ECPs and seven with the IUD as EC option. Women chose ECPs because they were familiar and easily accessible. Reasons for not adopting the copper IUD included having had prior negative experiences with the IUD, concerns about its side effects and the placement procedure, and lack of awareness about the copper IUD. Women who chose the IUD as EC did so primarily because of its long-term efficacy, invisibility, lack of hormones, longer window of post-coital utility, and a desire to not rely on ECPs. Women who chose the IUD as EC had not had prior negative experiences with the IUD, had already been interested in the IUD, and were ready and able to have it placed that day. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that women have varied and well-considered reasons for choosing each EC method. Both ECPs and the copper IUD are important and acceptable EC options, each with their own features offering benefits to patients. Efforts to destigmatize repeated use of ECPs and validate women's choice of either EC method are needed to support women in their EC method decision-making.

Interprofessional Abortion Opposition: A National Survey and Qualitative Interviews with Abortion Training Program Directors at U.S. Teaching Hospitals.

CONTEXT: Hospital policies and culture affect abortion provision. The prevalence and nature of colleague opposition to abortion and how this opposition limits abortion care in U.S. teaching hospitals have not been investigated. METHODS: As part of a mixed-methods study, a nationwide survey of residency and site directors at 169 accredited obstetrics-gynecology training programs was conducted in 2015-2016, and 18 in-depth interviews with program directors were conducted in 2014 and 2017. The prevalence and nature of interprofessional opposition were examined using descriptive statistics, and regional differences were investigated using logistic regression. A modified grounded theoretical approach was used to analyze interview data. RESULTS: Among the 91% of survey respondents who reported that they or their colleagues had wanted or needed to provide abortions in the prior year, 69% faced opposition from colleagues. Most commonly, opposition came from nurses (58%), nursing administration (30%) and anesthesiologists (30%), manifesting as resistance to participating in or cooperating with procedures (51% and 38%, respectively). Fifty-nine percent of respondents had denied care to patients in the prior year because of colleagues' opposition. Respondents in the Midwest and South were more likely than those in the Northeast to deny abortion care to patients because of such opposition (odds ratios, 3.2 and 4.4, respectively). Interviews revealed how participants had to circumvent opposing colleagues, making abortion provision difficult and leading to delays in and, infrequently, denial of abortion care. CONCLUSIONS: Interprofessional opposition to abortion is widespread in U.S. teaching hospitals. Interventions are needed that prioritize patients' needs while recognizing the challenges hospital colleagues face in their abortion participation decisions.

Women's Expectation of Receiving Reproductive Health Care at Catholic and Non-Catholic Hospitals.

CONTEXT: Catholic hospitals operate under directives that prohibit the provision of contraceptives, sterilization and abortion. Little research has examined women's awareness of these institutions' policies, which affects their ability to make informed decisions about where to seek care. METHODS: In 2016, some 1,430 women aged 18-45 were recruited from a U.S. probability-based research panel for a survey about hospital care. Respondents were randomized to a hypothetical Catholic or nonreligious hospital group and asked about their expectations for receiving nine specific reproductive services. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate associations between participants' characteristics and their correctly identifying a hospital as Catholic, as well as between characteristics and expecting that birth control pills, tubal ligation or abortion for serious fetal indications would be provided there. RESULTS: Women randomized to the Catholic hospital group were less likely than those randomized to the nonreligious group to expect provision of birth control pills (77% vs. 86%), tubal ligation (70% vs. 78%) or abortion for serious fetal indications (42% vs. 54%). Income level was associated with correctly identifying the Catholic hospital: Compared with individuals with the lowest income, those in three of the four other income groups were more likely to identify the hospital as Catholic (odds ratios, 1.9-2.2). In comparison with women who misidentified the Catholic hospital, those who identified it as Catholic had lower expectations that the hospital would provide birth control pills (0.3), tubal ligation (0.5) or abortion (0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Many women do not realize the breadth of restrictions on reproductive health care at Catholic hospitals. Without institutional transparency, patient autonomy and health outcomes may be compromised.

Do women know whether their hospital is Catholic? Results from a national survey.

OBJECTIVES: Catholic healthcare limits access to common reproductive care. We assessed what percentage of US women seeking care at Catholic hospitals are aware of their hospital's religious affiliation and identified variables associated with correct identification. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a national survey of women ages 18-45 (response rate 50%). The survey asked participants what hospital they would go to for reproductive care and what the religious affiliation of that hospital was. We verified responses as correct or incorrect against a known Catholic hospital list. We used bivariate analysis and logistic regressions to evaluate factors associated with correct identification. RESULTS: Sixteen percent of women reported a Catholic hospital as their primary hospital for reproductive care. Among women whose primary hospital was Catholic, 63% [95% confidence interval (CI): 54.5-70.7] correctly identified this, compared to 93% who correctly identified their hospital as non-Catholic (95% CI 91.4 - 95.0). Two thirds of respondents who misidentified their Catholic hospital's affiliation reported that their hospital was secular (66%), and 48% of those women felt sure or very sure of their incorrect response. Factors associated with correctly identifying Catholic hospitals included hospital with a religious-sounding name [adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=2.80; 95% CI: 1.07-7.34], respondent older age (aOR=3.77; 95% CI: 1.35-10.56), metropolitan residence (aOR=3.35; 95% CI: 1.01-11.10) and income over $100,000 (aOR 4.95; 95% CI 1.35 - 18.17). CONCLUSION: Over one third of US women who named a Catholic hospital as their primary hospital for reproductive care are unaware it is Catholic. Women are more likely to correctly identify a hospital as Catholic when that hospital has a religious sounding name. IMPLICATIONS: Patients need accurate information in order to make decisions about where to seek reproductive healthcare. Our results suggest that women are often unaware of their hospital's religious affiliation. Efforts are needed to increase hospital transparency and patient awareness of the implications that arise when healthcare is restricted by religion.

"Birth Control can Easily Take a Back Seat": Challenges Providing IUDs in Community Health Care Settings.

OBJECTIVE: To assess community health centers' (CHCs) capacity to offer streamlined intrauterine devices (IUDs) services. METHODS: Prior to implementing a contraceptive training project, we surveyed health care staff (N=97) from 11 CHC sites that offer IUDs onsite. Twenty interviews with clinicians explored more deeply their challenges offering IUDs in the CHC setting. RESULTS: Most practices required multiple visits for IUD placement, most (66%) clinician survey respondents had placed an IUD and 19% had placed an IUD as emergency contraception. Need for screening tests, scheduling challenges, pressures to meet patient quotas, and lack of priority given to women's health hindered streamlined IUD provision. CONCLUSIONS: Although access to IUDs has increased, significant barriers to provision in CHC settings persist. Clinic policies may need to address a variety of system and provider-level barriers to meet the needs of patients.