Enhancing cultural humility in food is medicine services: A mixed-methods investigation of patient food and dietary preferences.

Dietary inequities, influenced by sociocultural and economic factors, significantly affect health outcomes, particularly among underserved communities. To address these disparities, the Food is Medicine (FIM) movement strives to enhance access to nutritious food, provide education, and encourage behavioral changes. Boston Medical Center (BMC) 's Nourishing Our Community Program (NOCP) exemplifies this mission by offering FIM services such as an on-site food pantry, rooftop farm, and teaching kitchen. However, persistent barriers hinder the effectiveness of programs like NOCP. This quality improvement (QI) project employed mixed methods to refine existing and develop new patient-generated nutrition education materials and resources across various FIM services. METHODS: This QI project included surveys and focus groups conducted electronically and in person between January and May 2023. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The analysis of results revealed patient preferences and experiences regarding dietary patterns, food choices, and nutrition education. These findings enhanced existing handouts, websites, and group class curricula and forged new partnerships with local community-based organizations. CONCLUSION: Our findings underpin the importance of co-designing interventions, dynamic and multimodal resources, and cultural humility in care to meet individual needs. IMPLICATIONS: This initiative is a model for hospitals aiming to improve educational resources within FIM services and tailor content to the specific needs of diverse patient populations. This project is the first step in programmatic improvement, and continuous refinement is crucial for sustained improvements and advancing health equity at our institution.

Society of Family Planning Research Practice Support: Strategies and considerations for addressing race and racism in quantitative family planning studies.

OBJECTIVES: Family planning researchers have not critically engaged with topics of race, racism, and associated concepts like ethnicity. This lack of engagement contributes to the reproduction of research that reifies racial hierarchies rather than illuminate and interrupt the processes by which racism affects health. This Research Practice Support paper lays out considerations and best practices for addressing race and racism in quantitative family planning research. STUDY DESIGN: We are scholars with racialized identities and expertise in racial health equity in family planning research. We draw from scholarship and guidance across disciplines to examine common shortcomings in the use and analysis of race and racism and propose practices for rigorous use of these concepts in quantitative family planning research. RESULTS: We recommend articulating the role of race and racism in the development of the research question, authorship and positionality, study design, data collection, analytic approach, and interpretation of analyses. Definitions of relevant concepts and additional resources are provided. CONCLUSIONS: Family planning and racism are inextricably linked. Failing to name and analyze the pathways through which structural racism affects family planning, and the people who need or want to plan if, when, or how to become pregnant or parent may reproduce harmful and incorrect beliefs about the causes of health inequities and the attributes of Black, Indigenous, and other people racialized as non-White. Family planning researchers should critically study racism and race with procedures grounded in appropriate and articulated theory, evidence, and analytic approaches. IMPLICATIONS: Family planning research can better contribute to efforts to eliminate racialized health inequities and avoid perpetuating harmful beliefs and conceptualizations of race by ensuring that they study race and racism with procedures grounded in appropriate and articulated theory, evidence, and analytic approaches.

The Health Equity Explorer: An open-source resource for distributed health equity visualization and research across common data models.

Introduction: There is an urgent need to address pervasive inequities in health and healthcare in the USA. Many areas of health inequity are well known, but there remain important unexplored areas, and for many populations in the USA, accessing data to visualize and monitor health equity is difficult. Methods: We describe the development and evaluation of an open-source, R-Shiny application, the "Health Equity Explorer (H2E)," designed to enable users to explore health equity data in a way that can be easily shared within and across common data models (CDMs). Results: We have developed a novel, scalable informatics tool to explore a wide variety of drivers of health, including patient-reported Social Determinants of Health (SDoH), using data in an OMOP CDM research data repository in a way that can be easily shared. We describe our development process, data schema, potential use cases, and pilot data for 705,686 people who attended our health system at least once since 2016. For this group, 996,382 unique observations for questions related to food and housing security were available for 324,630 patients (at least one answer for all 46% of patients) with 65,152 (20.1% of patients with at least one visit and answer) reporting food or housing insecurity at least once. Conclusions: H2E can be used to support dynamic and interactive explorations that include rich social and environmental data. The tool can support multiple CDMs and has the potential to support distributed health equity research and intervention on a national scale.

Meeting people's pregnancy prevention needs: Let's not force people to state an "Intention".

Pregnancy intention screening does not identify need for pregnancy prevention and ignores the nuances of lived experiences while reinforcing white middle-class normative expectations. Asking about desire for contraception is a patient-centered approach to meeting people's needs.

Incarceration Status Among Individuals Obtaining Abortion in the United States, 2020.

Objectives. To examine the abortion frequency among incarcerated people before Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization was decided. Methods. We used data from the 2020 Abortion Provider Census to examine the number and distribution of facilities that provided abortions to incarcerated patients. Results. Sixty-seven clinics across 25 states and the District of Columbia provided more than 300 abortions to incarcerated patients in 2020. Eleven of these clinics are in states that now have total or near-total abortion bans. Public Health Implications. People in jails and prisons face many structural barriers when seeking an abortion, especially with increased state abortion restrictions and an inability to travel out of state. If they cannot obtain desired care, people may be forced to continue pregnancies in harsh conditions. To address abortion access inequities, policy and research must consider incarcerated individuals. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(12):1352-1355. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307411).

Primary and reproductive healthcare access and use among reproductive aged women and female family planning patients in 3 states.

Public funding plays a key role in reducing cost barriers to sexual and reproductive health (SRH) care in the United States. In this analysis, we examine sociodemographic and healthcare seeking profiles of individuals in three states where public funding for health services has recently changed: Arizona, Iowa, and Wisconsin. In addition, we examine associations between individuals' health insurance status and whether they experienced delays or had trouble in obtaining their preferred contraception. This descriptive study draws on data collected between 2018 to 2021 in two distinct cross-sectional surveys in each state, one among a representative sample of female residents aged 18-44 and the other among a representative sample of female patients ages eighteen and older seeking family planning services at healthcare sites that receive public funding to deliver this care. The majority of reproductive-aged women and female family planning patients across states reported having a personal healthcare provider, had received at least one SRH service in the preceding 12 months, and were using a method of birth control. Between 49-81% across groups reported receiving recent person-centered contraceptive care. At least one-fifth of each group reported wanting healthcare in the past year but not getting it, and between 10-19% reported a delay or trouble getting birth control in the past 12 months. Common reasons for these outcomes involved cost and insurance-related issues, as well as logistical ones. Among all populations except Wisconsin family planning clinic patients, those with no health insurance had greater odds of being delayed or having trouble getting desired birth control in the past 12 months than those with health insurance. These data serve as a baseline to monitor access and use of SRH services in Arizona, Wisconsin, Iowa in the wake of drastic family planning funding shifts that changed the availability and capacity of the family planning service infrastructure across the country. Continuing to monitor these SRH metrics is critical to understand the potential effect of current political shifts.

"Adoption is just not for me": How abortion patients in Michigan and New Mexico factor adoption into their pregnancy outcome decisions.

Objectives: In public discourses in the United States, adoption is often suggested as a less objectionable, equal substitute for abortion, despite this pregnancy outcome occurring much less frequently than the outcomes of abortion and parenting. This qualitative study explores whether and how abortion patients weighed adoption as part of their pregnancy decisions and, for those who did, identifies factors that contributed to their ultimate decision against adoption. Study design: We interviewed 29 abortion patients from 6 facilities in Michigan and New Mexico in 2015. We conducted a thematic analysis using both deductive and inductive approaches to describe participants' perspectives, preferences, and experiences regarding the consideration of adoption for their pregnancy. Results: Participants' reasons why adoption was not an appropriate option for their pregnancy were grounded in their ideas of the roles and responsibilities of parenting and fell into three themes. First, participants described continuing the pregnancy and giving birth as inseparable from the decision to parent. Second, choosing adoption would represent an irresponsible abnegation of parental duty. Third, adoption could put their child's safety and well-being at risk. Conclusions: Adoption was not an equally acceptable substitute for abortion among abortion patients. For them, adoption was a decision that represented taking on, and then abdicating, the role of parent. This made adoption a particularly unsuitable choice for their pregnancy. Implications: Rhetoric suggesting that adoption is an equal alternative to abortion does not reflect the experiences, preferences, or values of how abortion patients assess what options are appropriate for their pregnancy.

Concern that contraception affects future fertility: How common is this concern among young people and does it stop them from using contraception?

Objectives: This study examines the concern that contraception affects future fertility among community college students and its association with contraceptive use. Study design: We used baseline data from a randomized controlled trial with 2060 community college students assigned female at birth. We used mixed-effects multivariate logistic regression adjusted for clustered data to assess sociodemographic factors associated with concerns about contraception affecting future fertility and to test the association between this concern and contraceptive use. Results: Most participants (69%) worried about contraception affecting their future fertility. Multivariable results indicated that first-generation college students (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.55) and non-English speakers at home (aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.04-1.64) were more concerned. Racial and ethnic differences were significant, with Black non-Hispanic (aOR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.70-4.70), Asian/Pacific Islander non-Hispanic (aOR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.43-3.14), and Hispanic (aOR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.17-2.02) participants more likely to be concerned than White non-Hispanic counterparts. Participants who received contraceptive services in the past year had lower odds of this concern (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI 0.59-0.88). Furthermore, participants with this concern had lower odds of using contraception (aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.49-0.91), especially hormonal contraception (aOR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.97). Conclusions: Most students feared contraception's impact on fertility, and this fear was associated with not using contraception. Disparities in this concern may be tied to discrimination, reproductive coercion, and limited reproductive health care access. Addressing concerns about contraception affecting future fertility is crucial to person-centered contraceptive counseling. Implications: This study examines the concern that contraception affects future fertility among sexually active female community college students and its impact on contraceptive use. Most participants expressed concerns about contraception affecting future fertility. Addressing future fertility concerns in patient-centered contraceptive counseling is crucial for reaching young people.

Abortion service delivery in clinics by state policy climate in 2017.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to examine service delivery in clinics that provided abortions in 2017, including differences by abortion policy climate. STUDY DESIGN: Using data from the Guttmacher Institute's 2017 Abortion Provider Census, we examine amount charged for abortion care, pregnancy gestation at which abortions were offered, number of days per week that clinics provided abortions and types of nonabortion services offered. Our analysis focuses on the 808 clinic facilities that provided 95% of abortions that year. Measures were calculated nationally and according to whether the clinic was in a state we categorized as hostile, middle ground or supportive of abortion rights. RESULTS: In 2017, 64% of clinics offered abortion at 11 weeks pregnancy gestation, and 22% did so at 20 weeks gestation. Supportive states had a higher density of clinics that provide abortion for every measured gestation than hostile states. Clinics charged an average of $549 for a surgical abortion at 10 weeks and $551 for medication abortion. Some 46% of clinics in supportive states offered abortion care 5 or more days per week compared to 29% in hostile states. Most clinics offered standalone contraception and family planning (87%) and gynecological care (85%), but the proportion of clinics that provided these services was higher in supportive states (93% and 90%) than in hostile states (75% and 73%). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of abortion facilities provide a range of other health care services. Aspects of service delivery, such as number of days abortions are provided, may vary according to abortion policy climate. IMPLICATIONS STATEMENT: Onerous policies in states hostile to abortion rights may inhibit some facilities from providing abortion more days per week, and if so, could further burden patients obtaining abortion care in these states.

Texas women's decisions and experiences regarding self-managed abortion.

BACKGROUND: Prior research has shown that a small proportion of U.S. women attempt to self-manage their abortion. The objective of this study is to describe Texas women's motivations for and experiences with attempts to self-manage an abortion. The objective of this study is to describe Texas women's motivations for and experiences with attempts to self-manage an abortion. METHODS: We report results from two data sources: two waves of surveys with women seeking abortion services at Texas facilities in 2012 and 2014 and qualitative interviews with women who reported attempting to self-manage their abortion while living in Texas at some time between 2009 and 2014. We report the prevalence of attempted self-managed abortion for the current pregnancy among survey respondents, and describe interview participants' decision-making and experiences with abortion self-management. RESULTS: 6.9% (95% CI 5.2-9.0%) of abortion clients (n = 721) reported they had tried to end their current pregnancy on their own before coming to the clinic for an abortion. Interview participants (n = 18) described multiple reasons for their decision to attempt to self-manage abortion. No single reason was enough for any participant to consider self-managing their abortion; however, poverty intersected with and layered upon other obstacles to leave them feeling they had no other option. Ten interview participants reported having a complete abortion after taking medications, most of which was identified as misoprostol. None of the six women who used home remedies alone reported having a successful abortion; many described using these methods for several days or weeks which ultimately did not work, resulting in delays for some, greater distress, and higher costs. CONCLUSION: These findings point to a need to ensure that women who may consider self-managed abortion have accurate information about effective methods, what to expect in the process, and where to go for questions and follow-up care. There is increasing evidence that given accurate information and access to clinical consultation, self-managed abortion is as safe as clinic-based abortion care and that many women find it acceptable, while others may prefer to use clinic-based abortion care.

The history of tiered-effectiveness contraceptive counseling and the importance of patient-centered family planning care.

Public health workers, clinicians, and researchers have tried to increase long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) use by changing contraceptive counseling between patients and providers. Several major health organizations now recommend tiered-effectiveness counseling, in which the most effective methods are explained first so that patients can use information about the relative efficacy of contraceptive methods to make an informed choice. Some scholars and practitioners have raised concerns that, given histories of inequitable treatment and coercion in reproductive health care, tiered-effectiveness counseling may undermine patient autonomy and choice. This Clinical Opinion examines the development of tiered-effectiveness contraceptive counseling, how its rise mirrored the focus on promoting LARC to decrease the unintended pregnancy rate, and key considerations and the potential conflicts of a LARC-first model with patient-centered care. Finally, we discuss how reproductive justice and shared decision making can guide efforts to provide patient-centered contraceptive care.

Distance Traveled to Obtain Clinical Abortion Care in the United States and Reasons for Clinic Choice.

Introduction: Greater distance to abortion facilities is associated with greater out-of-pocket costs, emergency room follow-up care, negative mental health, and delayed care among U.S. abortion patients. However, the distance U.S. abortion patients travel has not been reported since 2008, and no study has examined reasons abortion patients choose the particular facility where they obtain their abortion. Materials and Methods: We analyzed data from the 2014 Abortion Patient Survey and Abortion Provider Census to report abortion patients' one-way travel from their resident zip code to their abortion clinic, whether they went to the closest clinic, and reasons for facility choice. We report unadjusted and adjusted associations of patients' characteristics with travel distance and differences in average travel distance by abortion patients' reported reasons for choosing their facility. Results: In 2014, 65% of abortion patients traveled less than 25 miles one-way, 17% traveled 25-49 miles, and 18% traveled more than 50 miles. Abortion patients who were white, college-educated, U.S.-born, ≥12 weeks pregnant, and lived outside metropolitan areas were more likely to travel farther. Nearly half of abortion patients went to their nearest provider and 32% chose their facility because it was the closest. Conclusion: These results indicate that travel distance is an important determinant of abortion care access in the United States. Nearly, one-fifth of U.S. abortion patients traveled more than 50 miles one-way and the most common reason reported for clinic choice was that it was the closest.

A harm-reduction model of abortion counseling about misoprostol use in Peru with telephone and in-person follow-up: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In Peru, abortion is legal only to preserve the life and health of the woman. A non-profit clinic system in Peru implemented a harm-reduction model for women with unwanted pregnancy that included pre-abortion care with instructions about misoprostol use and post-abortion care; they started offering telephone follow-up for clients in 2011. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the harm-reduction model, and to compare outcomes by type of follow-up obtained. METHODS: Between January 2012 and March 2013, 500 adult women seeking harm-reduction services were recruited into the study. Telephone surveys were conducted approximately four weeks after their initial harm-reduction counseling session with 262 women (response rate 52%); 9 participants were excluded. The survey focused on whether women pursued an abortion, and if so, what their experience was. Demographic and clinical data were also extracted from clinic records. RESULTS: Eighty-six percent of participants took misoprostol; among those taking misoprostol, 89% reported a complete abortion at the time of the survey. Twenty-two percent obtained an aspiration after taking misoprostol and 8% self-reported adverse events including hemorrhage without transfusion, infection, or severe pain. Among women who took misoprostol, 46% reported receiving in-person follow-up (in some cases both telephone and in-person), 34% received telephone only, and 20% did not report receiving any form of follow-up. Those who had in-person follow-up with the counselor were most likely to report a complete abortion (<0.001). Satisfaction with both types of follow-up was very high, with 81%-89% reporting being very satisfied. CONCLUSIONS: Liberalization of restrictive abortion laws is associated with improvements in health outcomes, but the process of legal reform is often lengthy. In the interim, giving women information about evidence-based regimens of misoprostol, as well as offering a range of follow-up options to ensure high quality post-abortion care, may reduce the risks associated with unsafe abortion.

Adolescents' and Young Adults' Reports of Barriers to Confidential Health Care and Receipt of Contraceptive Services.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe adolescents' and young adults' concerns about confidential reproductive health care and experience with time alone with a provider, and examine the association of these confidentiality issues with receipt of contraceptive services. METHODS: Data from the 2013 to 2015 National Survey of Family Growth were analyzed using Poisson regression to describe 15- to 25-year-olds' confidential reproductive health-care concerns and time alone with a provider at last health-care visit according to sociodemographic characteristics. We also assessed whether confidentiality issues were associated with obtaining contraceptive services among females. RESULTS: Concerns about confidential reproductive health care were less common among 15- to 17-year-olds who were covered by Medicaid compared to their parents' private insurance (adjusted risk ratio [ARR] = .61, confidence interval [CI] .41-.91) and had high-school graduate mothers compared to college-graduate mothers (ARR = .68, CI .47-.99), and were more common among those who lived with neither parent compared to living with both parents (ARR = 2.0, CI 1.27-3.16). Time alone with a provider was more common among black girls than white girls (ARR = 1.57, CI 1.11-2.22) and less common among girls covered by Medicaid than those with parents' private insurance (ARR = .72, CI .56-.92). Time alone was less common among boys living with neither parent compared to living with two parents (ARR = .48, CI .25-.91) and with high-school graduate mothers compared to college-graduate mothers (ARR = .59, CI .42-.84). Among sexually experienced girls and women, confidentiality concerns were associated with a reduced likelihood of having received a contraceptive service in the past year. CONCLUSIONS: Greater efforts are needed to support young Americans in receiving confidential care.

A 21st-Century Public Health Approach to Abortion.

In the United States, groups advocating for and against abortion rights often deploy public health arguments to advance their positions. Recently, these arguments have evolved into state laws that use the government health department infrastructure to increase law enforcement and regulatory activities around abortion. Many major medical and public health associations oppose these new laws because they are not evidence-based and do not protect women's health. Yet state health departments have been defending these laws in court. We propose a 21st-century public health approach to abortion based in an accepted public health framework. Specifically, we apply the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 10 Essential Public Health Services framework to abortion to describe how health departments should engage with abortion. With this public health framework as our guide, we argue that health departments should be facilitating women's ability to obtain an abortion in the state and county where they reside, researching barriers to abortion care in their states and counties, and promoting the use of a scientific evidence base in abortion-related laws, policies, regulations, and implementation of essential services.

Women's Knowledge of and Support for Abortion Restrictions in Texas: Findings from a Statewide Representative Survey.

CONTEXT: States have passed numerous laws restricting abortion, and Texas passed some of the most restrictive legislation between 2011 and 2013. Information about women's awareness of and support for the laws' provisions could inform future debates regarding abortion legislation. METHODS: Between December 2014 and January 2015, some 779 women aged 18-49 participated in an online, statewide representative survey about recent abortion laws in Texas. Poisson regression analysis was used to assess correlates of support for a law that would make obtaining an abortion more difficult. Women's knowledge of specific abortion restrictions in Texas and reasons for supporting these laws were also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 31% of respondents would support a law making it more difficult to obtain an abortion. Foreign-born Latinas were more likely than whites to support such a law (prevalence ratio, 1.5), and conservative Republicans were more likely than moderates and Independents to do so (2.3). Thirty-six percent of respondents were not very aware of recent Texas laws, and 19% had never heard of them. Among women with any awareness of the laws, 19% supported the requirements; 42% of these individuals said this was because such laws would make abortion safer. CONCLUSIONS: Many Texas women of reproductive age are unaware of statewide abortion restrictions, and some support these requirements because of misperceptions about the safety of abortion. Advocates and policymakers should address these knowledge gaps in efforts to protect access to legal abortion.

Impact of Clinic Closures on Women Obtaining Abortion Services After Implementation of a Restrictive Law in Texas.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the additional burdens experienced by Texas abortion patients whose nearest in-state clinic was one of more than half of facilities providing abortion that had closed after the introduction of House Bill 2 in 2013. METHODS: In mid-2014, we surveyed Texas-resident women seeking abortions in 10 Texas facilities (n = 398), including both Planned Parenthood-affiliated clinics and independent providers that performed more than 1500 abortions in 2013 and provided procedures up to a gestational age of at least 14 weeks from last menstrual period. We compared indicators of burden for women whose nearest clinic in 2013 closed and those whose nearest clinic remained open. RESULTS: For women whose nearest clinic closed (38%), the mean one-way distance traveled was 85 miles, compared with 22 miles for women whose nearest clinic remained open (P ≤ .001). After adjustment, more women whose nearest clinic closed traveled more than 50 miles (44% vs 10%), had out-of-pocket expenses greater than $100 (32% vs 20%), had a frustrated demand for medication abortion (37% vs 22%), and reported that it was somewhat or very hard to get to the clinic (36% vs 18%; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Clinic closures after House Bill 2 resulted in significant burdens for women able to obtain care.

Women's experiences seeking abortion care shortly after the closure of clinics due to a restrictive law in Texas.

OBJECTIVE: In 2013, Texas passed legislation restricting abortion services. Almost half of the state's clinics had closed by April 2014, and there was a 13% decline in abortions in the 6 months after the first portions of the law went into effect, compared to the same period 1 year prior. We aimed to describe women's experiences seeking abortion care shortly after clinics closed and document pregnancy outcomes of women affected by these closures. STUDY DESIGN: Between November 2013 and November 2014, we recruited women who sought abortion care at Texas clinics that were no longer providing services. Some participants had appointments scheduled at clinics that stopped offering care when the law went into effect; others called seeking care at clinics that had closed. Texas resident women seeking abortion in Albuquerque, New Mexico, were also recruited. RESULTS: We conducted 23 in-depth interviews and performed a thematic analysis. As a result of clinic closures, women experienced confusion about where to go for abortion services, and most reported increased cost and travel time to obtain care. Having to travel farther for care also compromised their privacy. Eight women were delayed more than 1 week, two did not receive care until they were more than 12 weeks pregnant and two did not obtain their desired abortion at all. Five women considered self-inducing the abortion, but none attempted this. CONCLUSIONS: The clinic closures resulted in multiple barriers to care, leading to delayed abortion care for some and preventing others from having the abortion they wanted. IMPLICATIONS: The restrictions on abortion facilities that resulted in the closure of clinics in Texas created significant burdens on women that prevented them from having desired abortions. These laws may also adversely affect public health by moving women who would have had abortions in the first trimester to having second-trimester procedures.