Training health professionals to reduce overreporting of birthing people who use drugs to child welfare.

BACKGROUND: Health care providers are a key source of reports of infants to child welfare related to birthing people's substance use. Many of these reports are overreports, or reports that exceed what is legally mandated, and reflect racial bias. We developed and evaluated a webinar for health professionals to address overreporting related to birthing people's substance use. METHODS: This evaluation study collected data from health professionals registering to participate in a professional education webinar about pregnancy, substance use, and child welfare reporting. It collected baseline data upon webinar registration, immediate post-webinar data, and 6 month follow-up data. Differences in both pre-post-and 6 month follow-up data were used to examine changes from before to after the webinars in beliefs, attitudes, and practices related to pregnant and birthing people who use drugs and child welfare reporting. RESULTS: 592 nurses, social workers, physicians, public health professionals, and other health professionals completed the baseline survey. More than half of those completing the baseline survey (n = 307, 52%) completed one or both follow-up surveys. We observed statistically significant changes in five of the eleven opioid attitudes/beliefs and in four of the nine child welfare attitudes/beliefs from baseline to follow-ups, and few changes in "control statements," i.e. beliefs we did not expect to change based on webinar participation. All of the changes were in the direction of less support for child welfare reporting. In particular, the proportion agreeing with the main evaluation outcome of "I would rather err on the side of overreporting to child welfare than underreporting to child welfare" decreased from 41% at baseline to 28% and 31% post-webinar and at 6-month follow up (p = 0.001). In addition, fewer participants endorsed reporting everyone at the 6 month follow-up than at baseline (12% to 22%) and more participants endorsed reporting no one at the 6-month follow-up than at baseline (28% to 18%), p = 0.013. CONCLUSIONS: Webinars on the legal, scientific, and ethical aspects of reporting that are co-developed with people with lived experience may be a path to reducing health professional overreporting to child welfare related to birthing people's substance use.

Associations between alcohol taxes and varied health outcomes among women of reproductive age and infants.

OBJECTIVE: No studies have examined whether alcohol taxes may be relevant for reducing harms related to pregnant people's drinking. METHOD: We examined how beverage-specific ad valorem, volume-based, and sales taxes are associated with outcomes across three data sets. Drinking outcomes came from women of reproductive age in the 1990-2020 US National Alcohol Surveys (N = 11 659 women $\le$ 44 years); treatment admissions data came from the 1992-2019 Treatment Episode Data Set: Admissions (N = 1331 state-years; 582 436 pregnant women admitted to treatment); and infant and maternal outcomes came from the 2005-19 Merative Marketscan® database (1 432 979 birthing person-infant dyads). Adjusted analyses for all data sets included year fixed effects, state-year unemployment and poverty, and accounted for clustering by state. RESULTS: Models yield no robust significant associations between taxes and drinking. Increased spirits ad valorem taxes were robustly associated with lower rates of treatment admissions [adjusted IRR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.91, 0.99]. Increased wine and spirits volume-based taxes were both robustly associated with lower odds of infant morbidities [wine aOR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96, 0.99; spirits aOR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.98, 1.00] and lower odds of severe maternal morbidities [wine aOR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.86, 0.97; spirits aOR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.92, 0.97]. Having an off-premise spirits sales tax was also robustly related to lower odds of severe maternal morbidities [aOR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64, 0.96]. CONCLUSIONS: Results show protective associations between increased wine and spirits volume-based and sales taxes with infant and maternal morbidities. Policies that index tax rates to inflation might yield more public health benefits, including for pregnant people and infants.

Relationships Between Alcohol Policies and Infant Morbidities and Injuries.

INTRODUCTION: Previous research has found that policies specifically focused on pregnant people's alcohol use are largely ineffective. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to analyze the relationships between general population policies regulating alcohol physical availability and outcomes related to pregnant people's alcohol use, specifically infant morbidities and injuries. METHODS: Outcome data were obtained from Merative MarketScan, a longitudinal commercial insurance claims data set. Policy data were obtained from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's Alcohol Policy Information System, the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association, and Liquor Handbooks and merged using policies in effect during the estimated year of conception. Relationships between state-level policies regulating sites, days/hours, and government monopoly of liquor sales and infant morbidities and injuries were examined. Analyses used logistic regression with individual controls, fixed effects for state and year, state-specific time trends, and SEs clustered by state. The study analysis was conducted from 2021 to 2023. RESULTS: The analytic sample included 1,432,979 infant-birthing person pairs, specifically people aged 25-50 years who gave birth to a singleton between 2006 and 2019. A total of 3.1% of infants had a morbidity and 2.1% of infants had an injury. State government monopoly on liquor sales was associated with reduced odds of infant morbidities and injuries, whereas gas station liquor sales were associated with increased odds of infant morbidities and injuries. Allowing liquor sales after 10PM was associated with increased odds for infant injuries. No effect was found for allowing liquor sales in grocery stores or on Sundays. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that limiting alcohol availability for the general population may help reduce adverse infant outcomes related to pregnant people's alcohol use.

Is legal recreational cannabis associated with cannabis use during pregnancy, beliefs about safety, and perceived community stigma?

BACKGROUND: Among pregnant and recently pregnant people we investigated whether legal recreational cannabis is associated with pregnancy-related cannabis use, safety beliefs, and perceived community stigma. METHODS: In 2022, we surveyed 3571 currently and recently pregnant English- or Spanish-speaking adults in 37 states. Primary outcomes included cannabis use during pregnancy and two continuous scale measures of beliefs about safety and perceived community stigma. Using generalized linear models and mixed effects ordinal logistic regression with random effects for state, we assessed associations between legal recreational cannabis and outcomes of interest, controlling for state-level and individual-level covariates and specifying appropriate functional form. RESULTS: Those who reported cannabis use during pregnancy were more likely to believe it is safe and to perceive community stigma compared to those who did not report use during pregnancy. Legal recreational cannabis was not associated with cannabis use during pregnancy, continuation or increase in use, frequency of use, or safety beliefs. Legal recreational cannabis was associated with lower perceived community stigma (coefficient: -0.07, 95% CI: -0.13, -0.01), including among those who reported use during (coefficient = -0.22, 95% CI: -0.40, -0.04) and prior to but not during (coefficient = -0.19, 95% CI: -0.37, -0.01) pregnancy. CONCLUSION: Findings do not support concerns that legal recreational cannabis is associated with cannabis use during pregnancy or beliefs about safety. Legal recreational cannabis may be associated with lower community stigma around cannabis use during pregnancy, which could have implications for pregnant people's disclosure of use and care-seeking behavior.

What attributes of abortion care affect people's decision-making? Results from a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to measure both stated and experimentally "revealed" abortion provision preferences among US people with capacity for pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: In July 2022, we recruited US residents assigned female sex at birth and aged 18 to 55 years using Prolific, an online survey hosting platform. We asked participants what first-trimester abortion method and delivery model they would prefer. We also assessed abortion care preferences with a discrete choice experiment, which examined the relative importance of the following care attributes: method, distance, wait time for appointment, delivery model (telehealth vs in-clinic), and cost. RESULTS: More than half of the 887 respondents (59%) self-reported a slight (22%) or strong (37%) preference for medication compared to aspiration abortion; 11% stated no preference. Our discrete choice experiment found that cost and wait time had a greater effect on hypothetical decision-making than did method and delivery model (discrete choice experiment average importances = 44.3 and 23.2, respectively, compared to 15.9 and 8.2, respectively). Simulations indicated that holding other attributes constant, respondents preferred medication to aspiration abortion and telehealth to in-clinic care. CONCLUSIONS: This study, the first to examine abortion preferences in the United States, using a discrete choice experiment, demonstrates the importance of wait time and cost in abortion care decision-making. Our work indicates that for this population, factors related to health care financing and organization may matter more than clinical aspects of care. IMPLICATIONS: Although people in this study preferred medication to aspiration abortion and telehealth to in-clinic care, wait time and cost of care played a greater role in care decision-making. Focusing solely on clinical aspects of care (i.e., method, delivery model) may ignore other attributes of care that are particularly important for potential patients.

Associations between state-level general population alcohol policies and drinking outcomes among women of reproductive age: Results from 1984 to 2020 National Alcohol Surveys.

BACKGROUND: Policies specific to alcohol use during pregnancy have not been found to reduce risks related to alcohol use during pregnancy. In contrast, general population alcohol policies are protective for the general population. Here, we assessed whether US state-level general population alcohol policies are related to drinking outcomes among women of reproductive age. METHODS: We conducted secondary analyses of 1984-2020 National Alcohol Survey data (N = 13,555 women ≤44 years old). State-level policy exposures were government control of liquor retail sales, heavy beer at gas stations, heavy beer at grocery stores, liquor at grocery stores, Sunday off-premise liquor sales, and blood alcohol concentration (BAC) driving limits (no law, 0.10 limit, 0.05-0.08 limit). Outcomes were past 12-month number of drinks, ≥5 drink days, ≥8 drink days, and any DSM-IV alcohol abuse/dependence symptoms. Regressions adjusted for individual and state-level controls, clustering by state, and included fixed effects for survey month and year. RESULTS: Allowing Sunday off-premise liquor sales versus not was related to having 1.20 times as many drinks (95% CI: 1.01, 1.42), 1.41 times as many ≥5 drink days (95% CI: 1.08, 1.85), and 1.91 times as many ≥8 drink days (95% CI: 1.28, 2.83). BAC limits of 0.05-0.08 for driving versus no BAC limit was related to 0.51 times fewer drinks (95% CI: 0.27, 0.96), 0.28 times fewer days with ≥5 drinks (95% CI: 0.10, 0.75), and 0.20 times fewer days with ≥8 drinks (95% CI: 0.08, 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: US state-level policies prohibiting Sunday off-premise liquor sales and BAC limits of 0.05-0.08 for driving are related to less past 12-month overall and heavy drinking among women 18-44 years old.

Medical Professional Reports and Child Welfare System Infant Investigations: An Analysis of National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System Data.

Background: Medical professionals are key components of child maltreatment surveillance. Updated estimates of reporting rates by medical professionals are needed. Methods: We use the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (2000-2019) to estimate rates of child welfare investigations of infants stemming from medical professional reporting to child welfare agencies. We adjust for missing data and join records to population data to compute race/ethnicity-specific rates of infant exposure to child welfare investigations at the state-year level, including sub-analyses related to pregnant/parenting people's substance use. Results: Between 2010 and 2019, child welfare investigated 2.8 million infants; ∼26% (n=731,705) stemmed from medical professionals' reports. Population-adjusted rates of these investigations stemming doubled between 2010 and 2019 (13.1-27.1 per 1000 infants). Rates of investigations stemming from medical professionals' reports increased faster than did rates for other mandated reporters, such as teachers and police, whose reporting remained relatively stable. In 2019, child welfare investigated ∼1 in 18 Black (5.4%), 1 in 31 Indigenous (3.2%), and 1 in 41 White infants (2.5%) following medical professionals' reports. Relative increases were similar across racial groups, but absolute increases differed, with 1.3% more of White, 1.7% of Indigenous, and 3.1% of Black infants investigated in 2019 than 2010. Investigations related to substance use comprised ∼35% of these investigations; in some states, this was almost 80%. Discussion: Rates of child welfare investigations of infants stemming from medical professional reports have increased dramatically over the past decade with persistent and notable racial inequities in these investigations.

Reconsidering the use of urine drug testing in reproductive settings.

The urine drug test is ubiquitous within reproductive healthcare settings. Although the test can have evidence-based use for a patient and clinician, in practice, it is often applied in ways that are driven by bias and stigma, do not correctly inform decisions about clinical aspects of patient care, and cause devastating ripple effects through social and legal systems. This paper proposes a framework of guiding questions to prompt reflection on (1) the question the clinical team is trying to answer, (2) whether a urine drug test answers the question at hand, (3) how testing benefits compare with the associated risks, (4) a more effective tool for clinical decision-making if the urine drug test does not meet the standards for use, and (5) individual and institutional biases affecting decision-making. We demonstrate the use of this framework using 3 common uses of the urine drug test within abortion care and labor and delivery settings.

Association of Pregnancy-Specific Alcohol Policies With Infant Morbidities and Maltreatment.

Importance: Research has found associations of pregnancy-specific alcohol policies with increased low birth weight and preterm birth, but associations with other infant outcomes are unknown. Objective: To examine the associations of pregnancy-specific alcohol policies with infant morbidities and maltreatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used outcome data from Merative MarketScan, a national database of private insurance claims. The study cohort included individuals aged 25 to 50 years who gave birth to a singleton between 2006 and 2019 in the US, had been enrolled 1 year before and 1 year after delivery, and could be matched with an infant. Data were analyzed from August 2021 to April 2023. Exposures: Nine state-level pregnancy-specific alcohol policies obtained from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's Alcohol Policy Information System. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were 1 or more infant injuries associated with maltreatment and infant morbidities associated with maternal alcohol consumption within the first year. Logistic regression, adjusting for individual-level and state-level controls, and fixed effects for state, year, state-specific time trends, and SEs clustered by state were used. Results: A total of 1 432 979 birthing person-infant pairs were included (mean [SD] age of birthing people, 32.2 [4.2] years); 30 157 infants (2.1%) had injuries associated with maltreatment, and 44 461 (3.1%) infants had morbidities associated with alcohol use during pregnancy. The policies of Reporting Requirements for Assessment/Treatment (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.52) and Mandatory Warning Signs (aOR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.10-1.27) were associated with increased odds of infant injuries but not morbidities. Priority Treatment for Pregnant Women Only was associated with decreased odds of infant injuries (aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.90) but not infant morbidities. Civil Commitment was associated with increased odds of infant injuries (aOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.08-1.48) but decreased odds of infant morbidities (aOR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.62). Priority Treatment for Pregnant Women and Women With Children was associated with increased odds of both infant injuries (aOR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.25) and infant morbidities (aOR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.13). Reporting Requirements for Child Protective Services, Reporting Requirements for Data, Child Abuse/Neglect, and Limits on Criminal Prosecution were not associated with infant injuries or morbidities. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, most pregnancy-specific alcohol policies were not associated with decreased odds of infant injuries or morbidities. Policy makers should not assume that pregnancy-specific alcohol policies improve infant health.

Pregnancy-specific alcohol policies and admissions to substance use disorder treatment for pregnant people in the USA.

AIMS: We examined relationships between pregnancy-specific alcohol policies and admissions to substance use disorder treatment for pregnant people in the USA. METHODS: We merged state-level policy and treatment admissions data for 1992-2019. We aggregated data by state-year to examine effects of nine pregnancy-specific alcohol policies on the number of admissions of pregnant women where alcohol was reported as the primary, secondary, or tertiary substance related to the treatment episode (N = 1331). We fit Poisson models that included all policy variables, state-level controls, fixed effects for state and year, state-specific time trends, and an offset variable of the number of pregnancies in the state-year to account for differences in population size and fertility. RESULTS: When alcohol was reported as the primary substance, civil commitment [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.45, 95% CI: 1.10-1.89] and reporting requirements for assessment and treatment purposes [IRR 1.36, 95% CI: 1.04-1.77] were associated with greater treatment admissions. Findings for alcohol as primary, secondary, or tertiary substance were similar for civil commitment [IRR 1.31, 95% CI: 1.08-1.59] and reporting requirements for assessment and treatment purposes [IRR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.00-1.47], although mandatory warning signs [IRR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.72-0.98] and priority treatment for pregnant women [IRR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.78-0.99] were associated with fewer treatment admissions. Priority treatment findings were not robust in sensitivity analyses. No other policies were associated with treatment admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnancy-specific alcohol policies related to greater treatment admissions tend to mandate treatment rather than make voluntary treatment more accessible, raising questions of ethics and effectiveness.

Clinician views on reporting pregnant and birthing patients who use alcohol and/or drugs to child welfare.

BACKGROUND: Multiple health professional associations have expressed concern with policies that require clinician reporting of pregnant people's substance use to child welfare, including that reporting negatively affects patient outcomes and the patient-provider relationship. However, research has shown that clinicians continue to report pregnant and birthing patients at high rates. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore clinician views on reporting pregnant and birthing patients who use alcohol or drugs during pregnancy to child welfare and whether there are patterns in the types of decisions that clinicians agree with, disagree with, or feel conflicted about. STUDY DESIGN: In-depth interviews were conducted with 37 hospital-based clinicians (13 obstetrics and gynecology physicians, 12 emergency medicine physicians, 10 family medicine physicians, and 2 advance practice registered nurses) in the United States. The participants discussed one or more patient cases where they or someone else on the care team had to decide whether to report that patient to child welfare related to their use of alcohol or drugs during pregnancy. Cases were categorized on the basis of whether the participant agreed, disagreed, or was conflicted by the reporting decision in that case. Patterns were explored by patient-level factors, provider specialty, and whether the participant perceived that the decision was influenced by a state or hospital policy. RESULTS: A total of 53 patient cases (average 2 per interview) were identified. The participants typically described cases where they agreed with the decision to report or believed there was no other option than reporting. These cases typically involved patients who used nonprescribed opioids during pregnancy, were experiencing factors (eg, unstable housing and untreated mental health disorders) in addition to substance use, and/or left the hospital against medical advice without their infant. Moreover, some participants, mostly obstetricians and gynecologists, described cases where they felt conflicted about or disagreed with the decision to report. These cases typically involved pregnant patients using cannabis and patients reported because of hospital and/or state policy. Only 1 participant described a case where they disagreed with the decision to not report. CONCLUSION: The participants agreed with most, but not all, child welfare reporting decisions. When participants disagreed or felt conflicted with reporting decisions, these feelings were almost entirely related to decisions to report, which, in some cases, were prompted by hospital or state policies. Policies may prompt reporting that exceeds what clinicians believe is appropriate.

Association of Mandatory Warning Signs for Cannabis Use During Pregnancy With Cannabis Use Beliefs and Behaviors.

Importance: As states have legalized recreational cannabis use, some have enacted policies mandating point-of-sale warning signs with information on harms of using cannabis during pregnancy. While research has found such warning signs are associated with increased adverse birth outcomes, reasons why are unclear. Objective: To examine whether exposure to cannabis warning signs is associated with cannabis-related beliefs, stigma, and use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from a population-based online survey conducted from May to June 2022. Participants included pregnant and recently pregnant (within past 2 years) members of the national probability KnowledgePanel and nonprobability samples in all US states and Washington, the District of Columbia, where recreational cannabis is legal. Data were analyzed from July 2022 to April 2023. Exposure: Living in 1 of 5 states with a warning signs policy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were self-reported beliefs (linear) that cannabis use during pregnancy is not safe, should be punished, and is stigmatized and cannabis use during pregnancy (dichotomous). Regressions, accounting for survey weights and clustering by state, examined associations of warning signs with cannabis-related beliefs and use. Results: A total of 2063 pregnant or recently pregnant people (mean [SD] weighted age, 32 [6] years) completed the survey, and 585 participants (weighted, 17%) reported using cannabis during their pregnancy. Among people who used cannabis during their pregnancy, living in a warning signs state was associated with beliefs that cannabis use during pregnancy was safe (ß = -0.33 [95% CI, -0.60 to -0.07]) and that people who used cannabis during pregnancy should not be punished (ß = -0.40 [95% CI, -0.73 to -0.07]). Among people who did not use cannabis before or during pregnancy, living in a warning signs state was associated with beliefs that use was not safe (ß = 0.34 [95% CI, 0.17 to 0.51]), that people should be punished for use (ß = 0.35 [95% CI, 0.24 to 0.47]), and that use was stigmatized (ß = 0.35 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.63]). Warning signs policies were not associated with use (adjusted odds ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.22 to 5.67]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of warning signs and cannabis-related use and beliefs, warning signs policies were not associated with reduced cannabis use during pregnancy or with people who used cannabis believing use during pregnancy was less safe but were associated with greater support for punishment and stigma among people who did not use cannabis.

Association of Race With Urine Toxicology Testing Among Pregnant Patients During Labor and Delivery.

This cohort study assesses the association of race with receipt of urine toxicology testing and a positive test result among pregnant patients admitted to the hospital for delivery.

Health care provider reporting practices related to self-managed abortion.

BACKGROUND: Health care providers reporting patients to government authorities is a main way people attempting self-managed abortion (SMA) become exposed to legal risks. Little is known about health care provider decision-making regarding SMA reporting. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 37 clinicians who provided care in hospital-based obstetrics or emergency departments (13 obstetricians/gynecologists, two advance practice registered nurses providing obstetrics care, 12 emergency medicine physicians, and 10 family medicine physicians) throughout the United States. The interview guide asked participants to describe one or more cases of caring for a patient who may have attempted SMA and about related reporting decisions. We coded responses to answer two questions: What comes to mind for health care providers when asked to think about experiences caring for a patient who may have attempted SMA? Based on health care provider experiences, how might people who providers suspect may have attempted SMA end up reported? RESULTS: About half of participants had cared for someone who may have attempted SMA for that pregnancy. Only two mentioned SMA with misoprostol. Most participants described cases where they were unsure whether the patient had attempted to end their pregnancy on purpose. In most instances, participants mentioned that that the possibility of reporting never occurred to them nor came up. In some cases, participants described a reporting "adjacent" practice - e.g. beginning processes that could lead to substance use, domestic violence, or self-injury/suicide-related reports - or considered reporting related to a perceived need to report abortion complications. In two cases, hospital staff reported to the police and/or Child Protective Services related to the SMA attempt. These involved passing of a fetus after 20 weeks outside the hospital and a domestic violence incident. CONCLUSION: Reporting patients who may have attempted SMA may occur via provider perception of a need to report abortion complications and fetal demises, particularly at later gestations, and other reporting requirements (e.g. substance use, domestic violence, child maltreatment, suicide/self-harm).

Out-of-State Travel for Abortion among Texas Residents following an Executive Order Suspending In-State Services during the Coronavirus Pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, existing and new abortion restrictions constrained people's access to abortion care. We assessed Texas abortion patients' out-of-state travel patterns before and during implementation of a state executive order that prohibited most abortions for 30 days in 2020. We received data on Texans who obtained abortions between February and May 2020 at 25 facilities in six nearby states. We estimated weekly trends in the number of out-of-state abortions related to the order using segmented regression models. We compared the distribution of out-of-state abortions by county-level economic deprivation and distance traveled. The number of Texas out-of-state abortions increased 14% the week after (versus before) the order was implemented (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.14; 95% CI: 0.49, 2.63), and increased weekly while the order remained in effect (IRR = 1.64; 95% CI: 1.23, 2.18). Residents of the most economically disadvantaged counties accounted for 52% and 12% of out-of-state abortions before and during the order, respectively (p < 0.001). Before the order, 38% of Texans traveled ≥250 miles one way, whereas during the order 81% traveled ≥250 miles (p < 0.001). Texans' long-distance travel for out-of-state abortion care and the socioeconomic composition of those less likely to travel reflect potential burdens imposed by future abortion bans.

Disseminating Evidence on Abortion Facilities to Health Departments: A Randomized Study of E-mail Strategies.

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.

Relationship between mandatory warning signs for cannabis use during pregnancy policies and birth outcomes in the Western United States.

As U.S. states legalize recreational cannabis, some enact policies requiring Mandatory Warning Signs for cannabis during pregnancy (MWS-cannabis). While previous research has found MWS for alcohol during pregnancy (MWS-alcohol) associated with increases in adverse birth outcomes, research has not examined effects of MWS-cannabis. This study uses Vital Statistics birth certificate data from June 2015 - June 2017 in seven western states and policy data from NIAAA's Alcohol Policy Information System and takes advantage of the quasi-experiment created by Washington State's enactment of MWS-cannabis in June 2016, while nearby states did not. Outcomes are birthweight, low birthweight, gestation, and preterm birth. Analyses use a Difference-in-Difference approach and compare changes in outcomes in Washington to nearby states in the process of legalizing recreational cannabis (Alaska, California, Nevada) and, as a secondary analysis, nearby states continuing to criminalize recreational cannabis (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming). Birthweight was -7.03 g lower (95% CI -10.06, -4.00) and low birthweight 0.3% higher (95% CI 0.0, 0.6) when pregnant people were exposed to MWS-cannabis than when pregnant people were not exposed to MWS-cannabis, both statistically significant (p = 0.005 and p = 0.041). Patterns for gestation, -0.014 weeks earlier (95% CI -0.038, 0.010) and preterm birth 0.2% higher (95% CI -0.2, 0.7), were similar, although not statistically significant (p = 0.168 and 0.202). The direction of findings was similar in secondary analyses, although statistical significance varied. Similar to MWS-alcohol, enacting MWS-cannabis is associated with an increase in adverse birth outcomes. The idea that MWS-cannabis provide a public health benefit is not evidence-based.

Geographic disparities in disruptions to abortion care in Louisiana at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Prior research identified a significant decline in the number of abortions in Louisiana at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as increases in second-trimester abortions and decreases in medication abortions. This study examines how service disruptions in particular areas of the state disparately affected access to abortion care based on geography. STUDY DESIGN: We collected monthly service data from Louisiana's abortion clinics (January 2018-May 2020) and conducted mystery client calls to determine whether clinics were scheduling appointments at pandemic onset (April-May 2020). We used segmented regression to assess whether service disruptions modified the main pandemic effects on the number, timing, and type of abortions using stratified models and interaction terms. Additionally, we calculated the median distance that Louisiana residents traveled to the clinic where they obtained care. RESULTS: For residents whose closest clinic was consistently scheduling appointments at the onset of the pandemic, the number of monthly abortions did not change (IRR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.84-1.36). For those whose closest clinic services were disrupted, the number of monthly abortions decreased by 46% (IRR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.45-0.65). Similarly, increases in second-trimester abortions and decreases in medication abortions were concentrated in areas where residents experienced service disruptions (AOR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.21-4.56 and AOR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.29-0.87, respectively) and were not seen elsewhere in the state. CONCLUSION: Changes in the number, timing and type of abortions were concentrated among residents in particular areas of Louisiana. The early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated geographic disparities in access to abortion care. IMPLICATIONS: Disruptions in services at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in Louisiana meaningfully affected pregnant people's ability to obtain an abortion at their nearest clinic. These findings reinforce the importance of developing mechanisms to support pregnant people during emergency situations when traveling to a nearby clinic is no longer possible.

Association of Provider Specialty With Abortion-Related Morbidity and Adverse Events Among Patients Having Procedural and Medication Abortions.

OBJECTIVE: Since abortion was legalized throughout the United States in 1973, states have passed restrictive abortion policies, including permitting only obstetrician-gynecologist physicians (OBGYNs) to provide abortions. We are unaware of any research that directly compares patient safety-related outcomes by physician specialty. In this study, we compared major and any abortion-related morbidity and adverse events in abortion care provided by physicians of other specialties versus OBGYNs. STUDY DESIGN: Using the IBM Watson Health MarketScan claims database, we identified privately insured individuals who had an induced abortion between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2014. The primary outcome was major abortion-related morbidity or adverse events, and the secondary outcome was any abortion-related morbidity or adverse events occurring within 6 weeks of the abortion. RESULTS: The study cohort included 34,764 patients who had 35,407 abortions-4,843 (13.7%) abortions provided by physicians of other specialties and 30,564 (86.3%) abortions provided by OBGYNs. Major and any abortion-related morbidity or adverse event occurred in 115 (0.3%) and 1,271 (3.6%) of 35,407 of abortions, respectively. In adjusted analyses, there was no statistically significant difference in major abortion-related morbidity or adverse events comparing physicians of other specialties versus OBGYNs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.75), and no statistically significant difference in any abortion-related morbidity or adverse events comparing physicians of other specialties versus OBGYNs (adjusted odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.09). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in abortion-related morbidity or adverse events by physician specialty. Our findings do not support state laws limiting abortion care to OBGYN physicians.