Unmet Reproductive Health Needs of Transgender and Gender Diverse People in Hawai'i: A Qualitative Needs Assessment.

The purpose of this study was to assess the reproductive health experiences of transgender and gender diverse people in Hawai'i, identify reproductive health needs that were unmet, and explore opportunities for addressing those needs. This was a qualitative, semi-structured individual interview study. Adults who identified as transgender or gender diverse were interviewed about their experiences accessing reproductive health services, their needs, and their ideas about clinical settings in which to receive reproductive health care services. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. Six trans men, 6 trans women, and 4 people who identified as non-binary or genderqueer were interviewed. Negative experiences in health care settings, particularly when seeking reproductive health care services, were common. Participants often had multiple providers and gender-affirming care was often accessed separately from other health care services. Desires for fertility and pregnancy varied widely between participants but were often not addressed at the initiation of gender-affirming care. Finding trans-friendly providers was notably difficult and participants often relied on friends and other members of the transgender community for guidance. Obstetrics and gynecology clinics present a potential opportunity for access to reproductive health services although their gendered environment was concerning for some participants. Transgender and gender diverse people in Hawai'i have access to some reproductive health services but experience stigma in certain settings. There is a need for ongoing improvement in reproductive health care services in Hawai'i to improve access for transgender and gender nonconforming people in Hawai'i.

Abortion Access and Medically Complex Pregnancies Before and After Texas Senate Bill 8.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how Texas health care professionals who care for patients experiencing medically complex pregnancies navigate abortion restrictions. METHODS: We conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with health care professionals across Texas who cared for patients with life-limiting fetal diagnoses or who had existing or developed health conditions that adversely affected pregnancy. We conducted the first round of interviews March-June 2021 and the second round of interviews January-May 2022 after the implementation of Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which prohibited most abortions after detection of embryonic cardiac activity. We used inductive and deductive qualitative analysis to identify themes and changes in practice after the implementation of SB8. RESULTS: We conducted a total of 50 interviews: 25 before implementation of SB8 and 25 after the law's implementation. We interviewed 21 maternal-fetal medicine specialists, 19 obstetrician-gynecologists, eight physicians whose primary practice is the provision of abortion care, and two genetic counselors. Participants reported presenting their patients with information about health risks and outcomes of continued pregnancy in each policy period; however, counseling on these options was curtailed after implementation of SB8. Even in cases in which a patient's health and, in some cases, life would be compromised, narrow criteria for abortions at hospitals limited care before implementation of SB8, and criteria often became more stringent after implementation of SB8. Administrative approval processes and referrals for abortion delayed care and endangered patients' health, which worsened after in-state options were eliminated after implementation of SB8. Participants noted that patients with more limited resources who were unable to travel out of state often had to continue pregnancies, further increasing their risk of morbidity. CONCLUSION: Texas health care professionals' abilities to provide evidence-based abortion care to patients with medically complex pregnancies were constrained by institutional policies, and care options narrowed further after implementation of SB8. Abortion restrictions limit shared decision making, compromise patient care, and put pregnant people's health at risk.

Accuracy of self-assessment of gestational duration among people seeking abortion.

BACKGROUND: Mifepristone, used together with misoprostol, is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for medication abortion through 10 weeks' gestation. Although in-person ultrasound is frequently used to establish medication abortion eligibility, previous research demonstrates that people seeking abortion early in pregnancy can accurately self-assess gestational duration using the date of their last menstrual period. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we establish the screening performance of a broader set of questions for self-assessment of gestational duration among a sample of people seeking abortion at a wide range of gestations. STUDY DESIGN: We surveyed patients seeking abortion at 7 facilities before ultrasound and compared self-assessments of gestational duration using 11 pregnancy dating questions with measurements on ultrasound. For individual pregnancy dating questions and combined questions, we established screening performance focusing on metrics of diagnostic accuracy, defined as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity (or the proportion of ineligible participants who correctly screened as ineligible for medication abortion), and proportion of false negatives (ie, the proportion of all participants who erroneously screened as eligible for medication abortion). We tested for differences in sensitivity across individual and combined questions using McNemar's test, and for differences in accuracy using the area under the receiver operating curve and Sidak adjusted P values. RESULTS: One-quarter (25%) of 1089 participants had a gestational duration of >70 days on ultrasound. Using the date of last menstrual period alone demonstrated 83.5% sensitivity (95% confidence interval, 78.4-87.9) in identifying participants with gestational durations of >70 days on ultrasound, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.85) and a proportion of false negatives of 4.0%. A composite measure of responses to questions on number of weeks pregnant, date of last menstrual period, and date they got pregnant demonstrated 89.1% sensitivity (95% confidence interval, 84.7-92.6) and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.88), with 2.7% of false negatives. A simpler question set focused on being >10 weeks or >2 months pregnant or having missed 2 or more periods had comparable sensitivity (90.7%; 95% confidence interval, 86.6-93.9) and proportion of false negatives (2.3%), but with a slightly lower area under the receiver operating curve (0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.84). CONCLUSION: In a sample representative of people seeking abortion nationally, broadening the screening questions for assessing gestational duration beyond the date of the last menstrual period resulted in improved accuracy and sensitivity of self-assessment at the 70-day threshold for medication abortion. Ultrasound assessment for medication abortion may not be necessary, especially when requiring ultrasound could increase COVID-19 risk or healthcare costs, restrict access, or limit patient choice.

Insights in Public Health: Equitable Access to Abortion Care in Hawai'i: Identifying Gaps and Solutions.

Despite a progressive legislative landscape, some women in Hawai'i lack access to abortion care. Those in the military, undocumented immigrants, and people living in rural areas and on neighbor islands face significant barriers to timely and affordable abortion care. Evaluating these gaps in access can help identify key areas for policy improvement to ensure health equity in Hawai'i.