Abortion terminology preferences: a cross-sectional survey of people accessing abortion care.

BACKGROUND: Abortion stigma likely affects the terminology abortion patients, providers and the public use or avoid using to refer to abortion care. Knowing the terminology people seeking abortion prefer could help inform the language used in clinical interactions and improve patients' experiences with abortion care. However, research in the U.S. has not examined patients' preferences in this area or whether terminology preferences vary by participant characteristics, in the way that experiences of stigma vary across different contexts and communities. This study aims to describe preferred terminology among people presenting for abortion care and to explore the pregnancy-related characteristics associated with these preferences. METHODS: We surveyed abortion patients about their experiences accessing abortion care, including preferred terms for the procedure. Respondents could mark more than one term, suggest their own term, or indicate no preference. We recruited people ages 15-45 seeking abortion from four U.S. abortion facilities located in three states (California, Illinois, and New Mexico) from January to June 2019. We used descriptive statistics and multivariable multinomial logistic regression to explore associations between respondents' pregnancy-related characteristics and their preferred terminology. RESULTS: Among the 1092 people approached, 784 (77%) initiated the survey and 697 responded to the terminology preference question. Most participants (57%, n = 400) preferred only one term. Among those participants, "abortion" (43%) was most preferred, followed by "ending a pregnancy" (29%), and "pregnancy termination" (24%). In adjusted multivariable models, participants who worried "very much" that other people might find out about the abortion (29%) were significantly more likely than those who were "not at all" worried (13%) to prefer "ending a pregnancy" over having no preference for a term (adjusted relative risk ratio: 2.68, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.46-4.92). CONCLUSIONS: People seeking abortion have varied preferences for how they want to refer to their abortions, in particular if they anticipate abortion stigma. Findings can be useful for clinicians and researchers so that they can be responsive to people's preferences during clinical interactions and in the design and conduct of abortion research.

Improving Reproductive Health Communication Between Providers and Women Affected by Homelessness and Substance Use in San Francisco: Results from a Community-Informed Workshop.

OBJECTIVES: Many cisgender women affected by homelessness and substance use desire pregnancy and parenthood. Provider discomfort with patient-centered counseling about reproductive choices and supporting reproductive decisions of these women poses barriers to reproductive healthcare access. METHODS: We used participatory research methods to develop a half-day workshop for San Francisco-based medical and social service providers to improve reproductive counseling of women experiencing homelessness and/or who use substances. Guided by a stakeholder group comprising cisgender women with lived experience and providers, goals of the workshop included increasing provider empathy, advancing patient-centered reproductive health communication, and eliminating extraneous questions in care settings that perpetuate stigma. We used pre/post surveys to evaluate acceptability and effects of the workshop on participants' attitudes and confidence in providing reproductive health counseling. We repeated surveys one month post-event to investigate lasting effects. RESULTS: Forty-two San Francisco-based medical and social service providers participated in the workshop. Compared to pre-test, post-test scores indicated reduced biases about: childbearing among unhoused women (p < 0.01), parenting intentions of pregnant women using substances (p = 0.03), and women not using contraception while using substances (p < 0.01). Participants also expressed increased confidence in how and when to discuss reproductive aspirations (p < 0.01) with clients. At one month, 90% of respondents reported the workshop was somewhat or very beneficial to their work, and 65% reported increased awareness of personal biases when working with this patient population. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: A half-day workshop increased provider empathy and improved provider confidence in reproductive health counseling of women affected by homelessness and substance use.

Abortion and the Mission of MCH: Perspectives of MCH and Family Planning Professionals in Health Departments.

INTRODUCTION: Prior research shows that maternal and child health (MCH) and family planning (FP) divisions in health departments (HDs) engage in some abortion-related activities, largely when legally mandated; some agencies also initiate abortion-related activities. Yet little is known about health department MCH/FP professionals' views on how abortion-related work aligns with their professional mission. METHODS: Between November 2017 and June 2018, we conducted in-depth interviews with 29 MCH/FP professionals working in 22 state and local HDs across the U.S. We conducted inductive thematic analysis to identify themes regarding participants' professional mission and values in relation to abortion-related work. RESULTS: Participants described a strong sense of professional mission. Two contrasting perspectives on abortion and the MCH/FP mission emerged: some participants saw abortion as clearly outside the scope of their mission, even a threat to it, while others saw abortion as solidly within their mission. In states with supportive or restrictive abortion policy environments, professionals' views on abortion and professional mission generally aligned with their overall state policy environment; in states with middle-ground abortion policy environments, a range of perspectives on abortion and professional mission were expressed. Participants who saw abortion as within their mission anchored their work in core public health values such as evidence-based practice, social justice, and ensuring access to health care. DISCUSSION: There appears to be a lack of consensus about whether and how abortion fits into the mission of MCH/FP. More work is needed to articulate whether and how abortion aligns with the MCH/FP mission.

Homelessness, housing instability, and abortion outcomes at an urban abortion clinic in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Adverse reproductive health outcomes are well documented among people experiencing homelessness or housing instability. Little is known about abortion outcomes among this population. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between housing status and abortion outcomes and whether gestational age mediates this relationship. STUDY DESIGN: Our sample comprised 1903 individuals who had abortions at an urban clinic in San Francisco, CA, from 2015 to 2017. We defined homelessness or housing instability as a binary exposure, which included staying outside, with friends and/or family, or in a tent, vehicle, shelter, transitional program, or hotel. We evaluated gestational duration of ≥20 weeks as a mediator variable. Our primary outcome was any abortion complication. Logistic regression models were adjusted for age, race, substance use, mental health diagnoses, and previous vaginal and cesarean deliveries. RESULTS: Approximately 19% (n=356) of abortions were among people experiencing homelessness or housing instability. Compared with those with stable housing, people experiencing homelessness or housing instability presented later in pregnancy (mean gestational duration, 13.3 vs 9.5 weeks; P<.001) and had more frequent complications (6.5% vs 2.8%; P<.001; odds ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-3.9). Adjusting for race, substance use, mental health diagnoses, and previous cesarean deliveries, individuals experiencing homelessness or housing instability were more likely to have abortion complications (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-4.0). However, the relationship was attenuated after adjusting for gestational duration (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-2.6), suggesting that gestational duration mediates the relationship between housing status and abortion complications. CONCLUSION: Patients experiencing homelessness or housing instability presented later in gestation, which seems to contribute to the increased frequency of abortion complications.

Approaches, barriers, and facilitators to abortion-related work in U.S. health departments: perspectives of maternal and child heath and family planning professionals.

BACKGROUND: Public health agencies in the United States have engaged in abortion-related activities for nearly 50 years. Prior research indicates that, while most state health departments engage in some abortion-related work, their efforts reflect what is required by law rather than the breadth of core public health activities. In contrast, local health departments appear to engage in abortion-related activities less often but, when they do, initiate a broader range of activities. METHODS: This study aimed to: 1) describe the abortion-related activities undertaken by maternal and child health (MCH) and family planning professionals in state and local health departments; 2) understand how health departments approach their programmatic work on abortion, and 3) examine the facilitators and barriers to whether and how abortion work is implemented. Between November 2017 and June 2018, we conducted key informant interviews with 29 professionals working in 22 state and local health departments across the U.S. Interview data were thematically coded and analyzed using an iterative approach. RESULTS: MCH and family planning professionals described a range of abortion-related activities undertaken within their health departments. We identified three approaches to this work: those mandated strictly by law or policy; those initiated when mandated by law but informed by public health principles (e.g., scientific accuracy, expert engagement, lack of bias, promoting access to care) in implementation; and those initiated by professionals within the department to meet identified needs. More state health departments engaged in activities when mandated, and more local health departments initiated activities based on identified needs. Key barriers and facilitators included political climate, funding opportunities and restrictions, and departmental leadership. CONCLUSIONS: Although state health departments are tasked with implementing legally-required abortion-related activities, some agencies bring public health principles to their mandated work. Efforts are needed to engage public health professionals in developing and implementing best practices around engaging in abortion-related activities.

Estimating the proportion of Medicaid-eligible pregnant women in Louisiana who do not get abortions when Medicaid does not cover abortion.

BACKGROUND: To estimate the proportion of pregnant women in Louisiana who do not obtain abortions because Medicaid does not cover abortion. METHODS: Two hundred sixty nine women presenting at first prenatal visits in Southern Louisiana, 2015-2017, completed self-administered iPad surveys and structured interviews. Women reporting having considered abortion were asked whether Medicaid not paying for abortion was a reason they had not had an abortion. Using study data and published estimates of births, abortions, and Medicaid-covered births in Louisiana, we projected the proportion of Medicaid births that would instead be abortions if Medicaid covered abortion in Louisiana. RESULTS: 28% considered abortion. Among women with Medicaid, 7.2% [95% CI 4.1-12.3] reported Medicaid not paying as a reason they did not have an abortion. Existing estimates suggest 10% of Louisiana pregnancies end in abortion. If Medicaid covered abortion, this would increase to 14% [95% CI 12, 16]. 29% [95% CI 19, 41] of Medicaid eligible pregnant women who would have an abortion with Medicaid coverage, instead give birth. CONCLUSIONS: For a substantial proportion of pregnant women in Louisiana, the lack of Medicaid funding remains an insurmountable barrier to obtaining an abortion. Forty years after the Hyde Amendment was passed, lack of Medicaid funding for abortion continues to have substantial impacts on women's ability to obtain abortions.

Acceptability of microbicidal vaginal rings and oral pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention among female sex workers in a high-prevalence US city.

Biomedical HIV prevention tools including oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and vaginal microbicidal rings hold unique value for high-risk women who may have limited capacity for condom negotiation, including the key populations of sex workers and drug users. Commercial sex is a PrEP indicator in CDC guidelines, yet little is known about female sex workers' (FSWs) knowledge of and attitudes toward PrEP or the recently developed monthly vaginal microbicide rings. We describe knowledge and attitudes toward PrEP and microbicide rings in a sample of 60 mostly drug-using FSWs in Baltimore, Maryland, a high HIV-prevalence US city. Just 33% had heard of PrEP, but 65% were interested in taking daily oral PrEP and 76% were interested in a microbicide vaginal ring; 87% were interested in at least one of the two methods. Results suggest method mix will be important as biomedical tools for HIV prophylaxis are implemented and scaled up in this population, as 12% were interested in PrEP but not vaginal rings, while 19% were interested in vaginal rings but not in PrEP. Self-efficacy for daily oral adherence was high (79%) and 78% were interested in using PrEP even if condoms were still necessary. Women who had experienced recent client-perpetrated violence were significantly more interested in PrEP (86% vs 53%, p = 0.009) and microbicidal rings (91% vs 65%, p = 0.028) than women who had not recently experienced violence. No differences were observed by demographics nor HIV risk behaviors, suggesting broad potential interest in daily PrEP and monthly-use vaginal microbicides in this high-risk population.

A brief, trauma-informed intervention increases safety behavior and reduces HIV risk for drug-involved women who trade sex.

BACKGROUND: Female sex workers (FSWs) are an important population for HIV acquisition and transmission. Their risks are shaped by behavioral, sexual network, and structural level factors. Violence is pervasive and associated with HIV risk behavior and infection, yet interventions to address the dual epidemics of violence and HIV among FSWs are limited. METHODS: We used participatory methods to develop a brief, trauma-informed intervention, INSPIRE (Integrating Safety Promotion with HIV Risk Reduction), to improve safety and reduce HIV risk for FSWs. A quasi-experimental, single group pretest-posttest study evaluated intervention feasibility, acceptability and efficacy among FSWs in Baltimore, MD, most of whom were drug-involved (baseline n = 60; follow-up n = 39 [65%]; non-differential by demographics or outcomes). Qualitative data collected at follow-up contextualizes findings. RESULTS: Based on community partnership and FSW input, emergent goals included violence-related support, connection with services, and buffering against structural forces that blame FSWs for violence. Qualitative and quantitative results demonstrate feasibility and acceptability. At follow-up, improvements were seen in avoidance of client condom negotiation (p = 0.04), and frequency of sex trade under the influence of drugs or alcohol (p = 0.04). Women's safety behavior increased (p < 0.001). Participants improved knowledge and use of sexual violence support (p < 0.01) and use of intimate partner violence support (p < 0.01). By follow-up, most respondents (68.4%) knew at least one program to obtain assistance reporting violence to police. Over the short follow-up period, client violence increased. In reflecting on intervention acceptability, participants emphasized the value of a safe and supportive space to discuss violence. DISCUSSION: This brief, trauma-informed intervention was feasible and highly acceptable to FSWs. It prompted safety behavior, mitigated sex trade under the influence, and bolstered confidence in condom negotiation. INSPIRE influenced endpoints deemed valuable by community partners, specifically improving connection to support services and building confidence in the face of myths that falsely blame sex workers for violence. Violence persisted; prevention also requires targeting perpetrators, and longer follow-up durations as women acquire safety skills. This pilot study informs scalable interventions that address trauma and its impact on HIV acquisition and care trajectories for FSWs. CONCLUSION: Addressing violence in the context of HIV prevention is feasible, acceptable to FSWs, and can improve safety and reduce HIV risk, thus supporting FSW health and human rights.

Lack of pregnancy intention or interest in pregnancy prevention now? How best to screen for desire for contraceptive care.

OBJECTIVES: To assess relationship between pregnancy intention and current desire for pregnancy prevention. STUDY DESIGN: Using data from two state population-based surveys, we compared One Key Question® and current pregnancy prevention desire. RESULTS: The majority who indicated ambivalence toward pregnancy (54%) and some respondents who indicated that they want to become pregnant in a year (30%) desired pregnancy prevention now. CONCLUSIONS: One Key Question® did not capture current pregnancy prevention desires of a sizeable minority of respondents. IMPLICATIONS: A pregnancy prevention-focused screening approach may be better suited to identify those in need of contraceptive services compared to pregnancy intention screening.

The status of person-centered contraceptive care in the United States: Results from a nationally representative sample.

CONTEXT: The Person-Centered Contraceptive Care measure (PCCC) evaluates patient experience of contraceptive counseling, a construct not represented within United States surveillance metrics of contraceptive care. We explore use of PCCC in a national probability sample and examine predictors of person-centered contraceptive care. METHODS: Among 2228 women from the 2017-2019 National Survey of Family Growth who reported receiving contraceptive care in the last year, we conducted univariate and multivariable linear regression to identify associations between individual characteristics and PCCC scores. RESULTS: PCCC scores were high ( x ¯ : 17.84, CI: 17.59-18.08 on a 4-20 scale), yet varied across characteristics. In adjusted analyses, Hispanic identity with Spanish language primacy and non-Hispanic other or multiple racial identities were significantly associated with lower average PCCC scores compared to those of non-Hispanic white identity (B = -1.232 [-1.970, -0.493]; B = -0.792 [-1.411, -0.173]). Gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity was associated with lower average PCCC scores compared to heterosexual (B = -0.673 [-1.243, -0.103]). PCCC scores had a positive association with incomes of 150%-299% and ≥300% of the federal poverty level compared to those of income <150% (150%-299%: B = 0.669 [0.198, 1.141]; ≥300%: B = 0.892 [0.412, 1.372]). Cannabis use in the past year was associated with lower PCCC scores (B = -0.542 [-0.971, -0.113]). CONCLUSIONS: The PCCC can capture differential experiences of contraceptive care to monitor patient experience and to motivate and track care quality over time. Differences in reported quality of care have implications for informing national priorities for contraceptive care improvements.

Patient and provider perspectives on barriers and facilitators to reproductive healthcare access for women experiencing homelessness with substance use disorders in San Francisco.

BACKGROUND: Women experiencing homelessness with substance use disorders face unique and intersecting barriers to realizing their reproductive goals. OBJECTIVE: This study explored the reproductive aspirations of this population, as well as the barriers to accessing reproductive services from the perspectives of affected individuals, and the healthcare providers who serve them. DESIGN: This mixed-methods study included surveys and interviews with women experiencing homelessness with substance use disorders and healthcare providers. METHODS: We conducted surveys and semi-structured interviews with women recruited from opiate treatment programs and homeless encampments in San Francisco, California in 2018. We also conducted interviews and focus groups with healthcare providers in reproductive health and substance use treatment settings. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded. Descriptive statistics of survey results were performed. RESULTS: Twenty-eight women completed surveys, 96% of whom reported current substance use. Ten women participated in interviews. One-third (9/28) reported desiring pregnancy in the next year; over half (16/28) reported they would be somewhat or very happy to learn they were pregnant. A majority used no contraception at last intercourse (14/28). Twenty-six healthcare providers participated in interviews (n = 15) and focus groups (n = 2). Patients and providers identified similar barriers to care access, including discrimination, logistical and financial challenges, and delayed pregnancy awareness. While providers proposed solutions focused on overcoming logistical challenges, patients emphasized the importance of transforming the healthcare environment to treat patients affected by substance use and homelessness with dignity and respect. CONCLUSION: Women experiencing homelessness with substance use disorders face intersecting and compounding barriers to accessing reproductive health services. For patients, the impact of stigma and bias on treatment experiences are particularly salient, in contrast to logistical barriers emphasized by providers. Improving access will require structural and individual-level solutions to address stigma and create person-centered, trauma-informed, and respectful care environments.

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.

Abortion method preference among people presenting for abortion care.

OBJECTIVE: To explore abortion method preference, interpersonal and cultural factors associated with preference, and whether, among people with a preference for medication abortion, those presenting past 10 weeks gestation had experienced more obstacles to care. METHODS: In 2019, we invited people aged 15 to 45 years presenting to 4 U.S. abortion clinics to complete a self-administered, anonymous iPad survey prior to seeing the health care provider. Questions focused on their pregnancy, including self-reported gestational age and experiences accessing abortion care, including abortion method preference. We used multivariate logistic regression to assess associations between worry about perceived pregnancy-related stigma or abortion-related health myths and abortion method preference. RESULTS: The majority (784 [77%]) of those approached (1092) initiated the survey and 712 responded to the preference question. Most (597 [84%]) preferred a method: 246 (41%) preferred medication abortion and 351 (59%) an in-clinic procedure. About one-third (110 [32%]) of those preferring medication abortions exceeded 10 weeks gestation and 83% (n = 91) had experienced delay-causing obstacles to care. In multivariate analyses, we found a greater odd of preference for medication abortion over in-clinic procedure among those very worried about people's reaction to the pregnancy (adjusted OR [aOR] 1.95, 95% CI 1.16-3.28), judgment from God or religion (aOR 1.93, 95% CI 1.17-3.19) and abortion affecting mental health (aOR 2.51, 95% CI 1.45-4.34) or ability to get pregnant later (aOR 1.80, 95% CI: 1.09-2.97). CONCLUSIONS: Many people seeking abortion have a method preference; delayed presentation to care may impede ability to obtain desired method. Pregnancy-related stigma and misinformation are associated with preference for medication abortion. IMPLICATIONS STATEMENT: Pregnancy-related stigma and misinformation, such as health and safety myths promulgated by state-mandated abortion counseling, may motivate preference for medication abortion. Abortion access obstacles may impede individuals' ability to obtain their preferred method. Removing barriers to clinic access may enhance people's ability to obtain their preferred abortion method.

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.

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.

A qualitative exploration of women's experiences discovering pregnancies in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: The few studies examining pregnancy testing in emergency departments (EDs) address pregnancy-related physical risks. Here, we examine experiences of people who discover pregnancies in EDs. METHODS: Between 2015 and 2017, as part of a larger study, we conducted interviews with 29 women in Southern Louisiana (n = 13) and Baltimore, MD (n = 16), who reported discussing their pregnancy during an ED visit. We analyzed these interviews for content and themes. RESULTS: Respondents reported diagnosis of pregnancy as a routine and straightforward component of care received in EDs. They reported receiving diagnostic studies and therapeutic interventions to rule out and treat complications of pregnancy and care for what brought them to the ED to begin with, such as treatments for nausea and vomiting; education about physical symptoms and nutrition-related needs during pregnancy; and referrals to prenatal care. However, we find evidence of unmet needs related to patient-centered communication, such as providing emotional care to women discovering pregnancies in EDs and lack of support for transitions to abortion care. CONCLUSIONS: While diagnosis of pregnancy in the ED may be routine for ED clinicians, it is not necessarily routine or straightforward for people receiving the diagnosis. ED clinicians should not assume that all people who discover their pregnancies in the ED want to continue their pregnancy. People who discover pregnancies in EDs may benefit from patient-centered communication and support for the range of transitions to care people might need in addition to the routinely provided diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. IMPLICATIONS: ED clinicians may need additional training and support to ensure that they can meet the range of needs of people who discover their pregnancies in the ED.

Mifepristone-misoprostol versus misoprostol-alone regimen for medication abortion at ≥24 weeks' gestation.

OBJECTIVE: To compare time from misoprostol initiation to fetal expulsion for mifepristone-misoprostol versus misoprostol-alone regimens of medication abortion performed at ≥24 weeks' gestation. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective study of medication abortion performed at ≥24 weeks' gestation between May 2016 and January 2018 at one site, comparing outcomes of patients receiving mifepristone-misoprostol versus misoprostol alone during two periods. All patients received feticidal injection and laminaria; the mifepristone-misoprostol group also received mifepristone 200 mg orally around the time of initial laminaria. Beginning 24-72 h later (depending on cervical assessment), both groups received misoprostol buccally every two hours. RESULTS: Analyses included 257 patients in the mifepristone-misoprostol group and 152 patients in the misoprostol-alone group. Median time from misoprostol initiation to fetal expulsion was similar between groups (4.8 h vs. 4.9 h; p = 0.43). Patients in the mifepristone-misoprostol group received less misoprostol overall (median [IQR]: 800 mcg [800-1200 mcg] vs. 1200 mcg [800-1600 mcg]; p < 0.01) and fewer patients received a second round of laminaria (n = 56, 22% vs. n = 58, 33%; p < 0.01) than the misoprostol-alone group. Seven patients (2%) were transferred to a hospital for complications; this proportion did not vary by regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of mifepristone was not associated with a reduction in induction interval at ≥24 weeks. However, patients in the mifepristone-misoprostol group received a lower total dose of misoprostol and were less likely to require two days of laminaria. The clinical significance of these differences is unclear, but may have implications for patient experience. Both regimens had low rates of complications. IMPLICATIONS: A randomized controlled trial comparing the mifepristone-misoprostol and misoprostol-alone regimens at ≥24 weeks is needed, as is evidence on patient perspectives on these regimens. Given the existing evidence, either regimen is reasonable.

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.

Developing and validating the Psychosocial Burden among people Seeking Abortion Scale (PB-SAS).

While there is a large body of research demonstrating that having an abortion is not associated with adverse mental health outcomes, less research has examined which factors may contribute to elevated levels of mental health symptoms at the time of abortion seeking. This study aims to develop and validate a new tool to measure dimensions of psychosocial burden experienced by people seeking abortion in the United States. To develop scale items, we reviewed the literature including existing measures of stress and anxiety and conducted interviews with experts in abortion care and with patients seeking abortion. Thirty-five items were administered to 784 people seeking abortion at four facilities located in three U.S. states. We used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to reduce items and identify key domains of psychosocial burden. We assessed the predictive validity of the overall scale and each sub-scale, by assessing their associations with validated measures of perceived stress, anxiety, and depression using multivariable linear regression models. Factor analyses revealed a 12-item factor solution measuring psychosocial burden seeking abortion, with four subdomains: structural challenges, pregnancy decision-making, lack of autonomy, and others' reactions to the pregnancy. The alpha reliability coefficients were acceptable for the overall scale (α = 0.83) and each subscale (ranging from α = 0.82-0.85). In adjusted analyses, the overall scale was significantly associated with stress, anxiety and depression; each subscale was also significantly associated with each mental health outcome. This new scale offers a practical tool for providers and researchers to empirically document the factors associated with people's psychological well-being at the time of seeking an abortion. Findings suggest that the same restrictions that claim to protect people from mental health harm may be increasing people's psychosocial burden and contributing to adverse psychological outcomes at the time of seeking abortion.

Inclusion of LGBTQ persons in research related to pregnancy risk: a cognitive interview study.

INTRODUCTION: Recently, researchers have begun considering whether and how to include lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people in research about abortion and contraception care. Including LGBTQ people in research about abortion and contraception care, as well as the risk for unintended pregnancy more broadly, requires accurate assessment of risk for unintended pregnancy, which involves different considerations for LGBTQ people. METHODS: We created a survey with existing sexual orientation and gender identity measures, new reproductive anatomy questions to guide skip patterns, gender neutral terminology in sexual and behavioural risk questions, and existing contraception and pregnancy intentions questions that were modified to be gender neutral. We then assessed the appropriateness of these measures through cognitive interviews with 39 individuals aged 18-44 years who were assigned female at birth and identified as LGBTQ. Participants were recruited in the San Francisco Bay Area of California, Baltimore, Maryland and other cities. RESULTS: Existing demographic questions on sexual orientation and gender identity were well received by participants and validating of participant reported identities. Participants responded positively to new reproductive anatomy questions and to gender neutral terminology in sexual behaviour and pregnancy risk questions. They felt skip patterns appropriately removed them out of inappropriate items (eg, use of contraception to avoid unintended pregnancy); there was some question about whether pregnancy intention measures were widely appropriate or should be further restricted. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides guidance on ways to appropriately evaluate inclusion of LGBTQ people in abortion and contraception research.