Provider Mistrust and Telemedicine Abortion Care Preferences Among Patients in Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky.

Objectives: The convenience and privacy provided by telemedicine medication abortion may make this service preferable to patients who mistrust their abortion provider. We assessed associations between mistrust in the abortion provider and preferences for telemedicine abortion. Study Design: From April 2020 to April 2021, we surveyed patients seeking abortion in Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky. Using unconditional logistic regression models, we examined unadjusted and adjusted associations between mistrust in the abortion provider and preferences for telemedicine abortion among all participants, and among only participants undergoing medication abortion. Results: Of 1,218 patients who met inclusion criteria, 546 used medication abortion services. Just more than half (56%) of all participants and many (64%) of medication abortion participants preferred telemedicine services. Only 6% of medication abortion participants received telemedicine medication dispensing services. Only 1.4% of all participants and 1% of medication abortion participants mistrusted the abortion provider. Participants who mistrusted the abortion provider were somewhat more likely to prefer telemedicine abortion (unadjusted odds ratio [OR]: 2.5, 95% CI: 0.8-7.9; adjusted OR: 2.9, 95% CI: 0.9-9), and medication abortion participants who mistrusted the abortion provider were also somewhat more likely to prefer telemedicine abortion (unadjusted OR: 3.5, 95% CI: 0.4-28.9; adjusted OR: 5.0, 95% CI: 0.6-43), although these associations were not statistically significant. Conclusions: In three abortion-restrictive states, most patients expressed preferences for telemedicine abortion, but few accessed them. Provider mistrust was rare, but those experiencing mistrust trended toward preferring telemedicine services. Telemedicine may improve access to abortion services for patients experiencing medical mistrust.

Abortion travel within the United States: An observational study of cross-state movement to obtain abortion care in 2017.

Background: In the United States, abortion access is often more limited for people who live in states with few abortion facilities and restrictive abortion legislation. Pregnant people seeking an abortion thus often travel to access care. Methods: We calculated state-specific abortion rate (number of abortions per thousand women ages 15 to 44) and percentage of patients leaving for abortion care using CDC 2017 Abortion Surveillance data, the Guttmacher Institute's Abortion Provider Census and Pregnancies, Births and Abortions in the United States report, and US Census data. We categorized percent leaving by abortion policy landscape using the Guttmacher Institute's classification of state abortion laws, and by facility density (number of abortion facilities per million women ages 15 to 44), calculated using Census and Guttmacher data. We ran correlational tests between each of our variables (percent leaving, facility density, and policy environment), as well as between percent leaving and facility density within policy environment. Findings: In 2017, an average of 8% of US patients left their state of residence for abortion care. Percent leaving varied widely by state: 74% left Wyoming, 57% left South Carolina, and 56% left Missouri, while 13 states had fewer than 4% of patients leaving. States with more restrictive laws averaged 12% of patients leaving, while states with middle ground or supportive laws averaged 10% and 3% leaving, respectively. Pairwise correlations between percent leaving, facility density, and policy score were all statistically significant, though correlations between percent leaving and facility density within policy environment were not. Interpretation: Many patients travel across state lines for abortion care. While patients may leave for a range of reasons, restrictive state-level abortion policy and facility scarcity are associated with patients leaving their state of residence. Funding: This study was supported by a philanthropic foundation that makes grants anonymously.