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.

Greasing the wheels: The impact of COVID-19 on US physician attitudes and practices regarding medication abortion.

OBJECTIVE: To explore US provider perspectives about self-sourced medication abortion and how their attitudes and clinic practices changed in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a multi-method study of survey and interview data. We performed 40 baseline interviews and surveys in spring 2019 and 36 follow-up surveys and ten interviews one year later. We compared pre- and post-Likert scale responses of provider views on the importance of different aspects of standard medication abortion assessment and evaluation (e.g., related to ultrasounds and blood-typing). We performed content analysis of the follow-up interviews using deductive-inductive analysis. RESULTS: Survey results revealed that clinics substantially changed their medication abortion protocols in response to COVID-19, with more than half increasing their gestational age limits and introducing telemedicine for follow-up of a medication abortion. Interview analysis suggested that physicians were more supportive of self-sourced medication abortion in response to changing clinic protocols that decreased in-clinic assessment and evaluation for medication abortion, and as a result of physicians' altered assessments of risk in the context of COVID-19. Having evidence already in place that supported these practice changes made the implementation of new protocols more efficient, while working in a state with restrictive abortion policies thwarted the flexibility of clinics to adapt to changes in standards of care. CONCLUSION: This exploratory study reveals that the COVID-19 pandemic has altered clinical assessment of risk and has shifted practice towards a less medicalized model. Further work to facilitate person-centered abortion information and care can build on initial modifications in response to the pandemic. IMPLICATIONS: COVID-19 has shifted clinician perception of risk and has catalyzed a change in clinical protocols for medication abortion. However, state laws and policies that regulate medication abortion limit physician ability to respond to changes in risk assessment.