Abortion pills on TV: An exploratory study of the associations between abortion plotline viewership and beliefs regarding in-clinic and self-managed medication abortion.

OBJECTIVES: Entertainment television is an influential source of health information, including about reproductive health. We investigated the association between exposure to television plotlines about medication abortion on audience awareness and beliefs about medication abortion. STUDY DESIGN: We administered a national cross-sectional online survey from December 2021 to January 2022 with a probability-based sample of people assigned female at birth. We asked respondents to select plotlines they had seen from a list of seven that portrayed medication abortion. Among the 3425 people who responded to plotline items, 3340 responded to our outcome measures. Using weighed multivariable analyses, we examined adjusted relationships between exposure to specific types of abortion plotlines and awareness of and beliefs about medication abortion medical safety. RESULTS: We found that audience exposure to medication abortion plotlines in which the medication abortion was obtained from a clinic and portrayed as safe was associated with greater awareness of medication abortion compared to nonexposure (RR: 1.68; 95% CI: 1.17, 2.40). Exposure to plotlines that portrayed MA or self-managed MA as safe was associated with audience beliefs that medication abortion is safe. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the content of abortion plotlines and exposure to accurate information may be connected to audience awareness of and beliefs about abortion. IMPLICATIONS: In a climate of misinformation about abortion, audience exposure to medically accurate television plotlines about medication abortion may be an effective way to increase awareness of medication abortion and influence beliefs about medication abortion safety.

Experiences of delay-causing obstacles and mental health at the time of abortion seeking.

Objectives: The delays and challenges people encounter when seeking abortion are well-documented, but their psychological implications are understudied. Aiming to fill this gap, we explored the associations between experiences of delay-causing obstacles to abortion care and adverse mental health symptoms among individuals seeking abortion care. Study design: In 2019, we surveyed 784 people (of 1092 approached) ages 15-45 accessing abortion care in four clinics in abortion-supportive states: California, Illinois, and New Mexico. We conducted multivariable Poisson regressions to examine associations between experiencing delay-causing obstacles to abortion care and stress, anxiety, and depression at the abortion appointment. We also used Poisson regression to examine whether some individuals are more likely to experience delay-causing obstacles than others. Results: Three in five participants (58%) experienced delay-causing obstacles when accessing abortion care. The most prevalent obstacles were cost-related (45%), followed by access-related (43%), and travel time-related (35%) delays. In adjusted analyses, experiencing any type of delay-causing obstacle to abortion care was significantly associated with more symptoms of stress, anxiety, and depression and higher risk of anxiety and depressive disorders. Participants were more likely to experience delay-causing obstacles if they traveled from another state or over 100 miles to reach the clinic, sought abortion beyond 13 weeks gestation, lacked money for unexpected expenses, and found it difficult to pay for the abortion. Conclusion: Abortion is a time-sensitive healthcare, but most individuals are forced to delay care due to various obstacles that may have a negative impact on their psychological well-being. Implications: Obstacles causing delays in accessing abortion care may contribute to elevated symptoms of stress, anxiety, and depression and higher risk of anxiety and depressive disorders for abortion patients. As restrictive policies increase, delays are likely to worsen, potentially leading to psychological harm for people seeking abortion.

Support for criminalization of self-managed abortion (SMA): A national representative survey.

OBJECTIVE: Since the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the federal right to abortion, there is a heightened need to understand public opinion about the criminalization of people who attempt to end their pregnancies outside the formal healthcare setting, referred to as self-managed abortion (SMA). We assessed U.S. attitudes about whether three forms of SMA should be legal, reported or punished: 1) using abortion pills obtained outside the healthcare system, 2) using other medications, drugs, herbs, or by drinking alcohol, and 3) using traumatic methods (inserting an object in their body or hitting their stomach). METHODS: From December 2021 to January 2022, we administered a national probability-based online survey to English- and Spanish-speaking people assigned female (AFAB, ages 15-49) or male at birth (AMAB, ages 18-49) regarding their attitudes about criminalizing SMA, using Ipsos' KnowledgePanel. We estimated weighted proportions and conducted multivariable regression analyses to identify characteristics associated with support for SMA legality and punishment (reporting to authorities, paying a fine or going to jail). RESULTS: A total of 7,016 AFAB and 360 AMAB completed the survey. People were less likely (p < .05) to agree that SMA using abortion pills should be illegal (34% of AFAB and 43% of AMAB) than other forms of SMA (36-48%), although over one-fifth were unsure (AFAB, 20-23% and AMAB, 24-27%). People were less likely to agree SMA using abortion pills should be criminalized than SMA using other drugs, medications, herbs, alcohol or by using traumatic methods. In multivariable analyses, AMAB and Christian religion were associated with agreeing that SMA using abortion pills should be illegal; people who identified as Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and experienced medical mistreatment were less likely to agree SMA with medication abortion pills should be illegal. CONCLUSIONS: Public support for criminalizing SMA is complex and varied by SMA method and form of punishment.

Access to Reproductive Health Services Among People With Disabilities.

Importance: People with disabilities face inequitable access to reproductive health (RH) services, yet the national prevalence of barriers to access experienced across disability types and statuses is unknown. Objective: To assess the national prevalence of barriers to RH access experienced by people with disabilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed results of an online probability-based national survey of RH experiences that was conducted from December 2021 to January 2022. The national sample consisted of English- and Spanish-speaking panel members of a market research firm. Panelists were invited to participate in a survey on their RH experiences and opinions. These participants were aged 15 to 49 years and assigned female at birth (AFAB). Weighted proportions were estimated, and bivariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess associations between disability status and barriers to accessing RH services. Exposure: Using 5 of the 6 Washington Group Short Set on Functioning items, 8 dichotomous disability indicators were created: (1) vision, (2) hearing, (3) mobility, (4) activities of daily living, (5) communication, (6) overall disability status (a lot or more difficulty functioning in ≥1 domain), (7) some difficulty functioning (below the disability threshold; some or more difficulty functioning in ≥1 domain), and (8) multiple disabilities (a lot or more difficulty functioning in ≥2 domains). Main Outcomes and Measures: Number and types of barriers (logistical, access, cost, privacy, and interpersonal relationship) to accessing RH services in the past 3 years. Results: After exclusion, the final sample included 6956 people AFAB, with a mean (SD) age of 36.0 (8.3) years. Of these participants, 8.5% (95% CI, 7.6%-9.5%) met the disability threshold. Participants with disabilities compared with those without disabilities were disproportionately more likely to be non-Hispanic Black (18.8% [95% CI, 14.4%-24.1%] vs 13.2% [95% CI, 11.9%-14.5%]) or Hispanic or Latinx (completed survey in English: 18.1% [95% CI, 14.0%-23.0%] vs 14.6% [95% CI, 13.3%-16.0%]; completed survey in Spanish: 8.9% [95% CI, 6.2%-12.8%] vs 6.2% [95% CI, 5.4%-7.1%]) individuals, to identify as LGBTQAI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer [or questioning], asexual [or allied], intersex; 16.4% [95% CI, 12.3%-21.6%] vs 11.8% [95% CI, 10.6%-13.1%]), to live below the federal poverty level (27.3% [95% CI, 22.3%-32.8%] vs 10.7% [95% CI, 9.7%-11.9%]), and to ever experienced medical mistreatment (49.6% [95% CI, 43.7%-55.5%] vs 36.5% [95% CI, 34.8%-38.2%]). Among those who had ever tried to access RH services (n = 6027), people with disabilities vs without disabilities were more likely to experience barriers (69.0% [95% CI, 62.9%-74.5%] vs 43.0% [95% CI, 41.2%-44.9%]), which were most often logistical (50.7%; 95% CI, 44.2%-57.2%) and access (49.9%; 95% CI, 43.4%-56.4%) barriers. The disability domains with the highest proportion of people who experienced 3 or more barriers in the past 3 years included activities of daily living (75.3%; 95% CI, 61.1%-85.6%), communication (65.1%; 95% CI, 49.5%-78.1%), and multiple (59.9%; 95% CI, 45.6%-72.7%) disabilities. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found large disparities in access to RH services among people AFAB with disabilities. Findings indicated a need to alleviate barriers to RH care, including improving the transportation infrastructure and reinforcing patient-centered approaches that engender inclusivity in health care settings.

Awareness of medication abortion among a nationally representative U.S. sample, 2021-2022.

OBJECTIVES: Assess public awareness of medication abortion in the U.S. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional survey in 2021-2022 with a probability-based sample, calculating the prevalence of medication abortion awareness and assessing its associations with participant characteristics using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 45% of adults (7201/16,113) and 49% of eligible 15-17-year-old females (175/358) invited completed the survey. In all, 64% of 6992 participants assigned female at birth, and 57% of 360 participants assigned male reported awareness of medication abortion. Race, age, education, poverty level, religion, sexual identity, abortion history, and attitudes toward abortion legality were associated with differences in awareness. CONCLUSIONS: Medication abortion awareness differs by participant groups and is critical for expanding abortion access. IMPLICATIONS: Tailored health information for groups with less awareness of medication abortion may help spread knowledge of the method and how to access it.

Changes in the Frequency and Type of Barriers to Reproductive Health Care Between 2017 and 2021.

Importance: Previous research has documented individual-level barriers to reproductive health services, but few studies have examined national trends. Objective: To determine whether the number and type of barriers to reproductive health care experienced by US women of reproductive age changed from 2017 to 2021. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used serial survey data, weighted to be nationally representative, collected in August 2017 and December 2021 from members of Ipsos's KnowledgePanel who were aged 18 to 49 years and assigned female at birth. Exposures: Having experienced barriers to reproductive health care over the past 3 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was number and type of barriers to reproductive health care services, including Papanicolaou tests or birth control, experienced in the past 3 years. Increases in barriers to reproductive health care were measured using multivariable linear regressions adjusted for age, race and ethnicity, education level, employment status, metropolitan area, geographic region, household income, and language (English vs Spanish). Results: Of 29 496 KnowledgePanel members invited, 7022 (mean [SD] age, 33.9 [9.0] years) and 6841 (mean [SD] age, 34.2 [8.6] years) completed the 2017 and 2021 surveys (50% and 45% response rates, respectively). Among 12 351 participants who indicated that they had ever tried accessing reproductive health services, 35.9% (95% CI, 34.8%-37.0%) were aged 30 to 39 years; 5.5% (95% CI, 4.9%-6.2%) were Asian or Pacific Islander, 13.7% (95% CI, 12.8%-14.6%) were Black, 19.1% (95% CI, 18.1%-20.1%) were Hispanic, 58.2% (95% CI, 57.0%-59.5%) were White, and 3.5% (95% CI, 3.1%-4.0%) were multiracial or of other race or ethnicity; and 11.7% (95% CI, 11.0%-12.5%) were living below 100% of the federal poverty level. Covariate distribution was similar across years. In bivariable analyses, participants were more likely to report experiencing a given barrier in the past 3 years in 2021 than in 2017 for all but 2 barriers. More people experienced 3 or more barriers in 2021 (18.6%; 95% CI, 17.3%-20.0%) than in 2017 (16.1%; 95% CI, 14.9%-17.4%) (P = .008). In multivariable analyses, the mean number of barriers increased significantly from 1.09 (95% CI, 1.02-1.14) in 2017 to 1.29 (95% CI, 1.22-1.37) (P < .001) in 2021. Participants who were aged 25 to 29 years (0.42; 95% CI, 0.37-0.47), identified as Hispanic (0.41; 95% CI, 0.38-0.45), had no high school diploma or General Educational Development test (0.62; 95% CI, 0.53-0.72), lived below 100% of the federal poverty level (0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.73), and took the survey in Spanish (0.87; 95% CI, 0.73-1.01) saw the greatest increases in mean number of barriers between 2017 and 2021. Conclusions and Relevance: The study findings suggest that barriers to reproductive health care increased between 2017 and 2021, with the largest increases observed among individuals from historically disadvantaged populations. Efforts are needed to ensure that reproductive health care access remains a priority.

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.

Unwanted abortion disclosure and social support in the abortion decision and mental health symptoms: A cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent of unwanted abortion disclosure and levels of social support in the abortion decision and their association with depression, anxiety, and stress. STUDY DESIGN: From January to June 2019, we surveyed people presenting for abortion at four clinics in California, New Mexico, and Illinois regarding their experiences accessing abortion. We used multivariable regression to examine associations between unwanted abortion disclosure and social support in the abortion decision, and symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress. RESULTS: Among 1092 people approached, 784 (72% response rate) eligible individuals initiated the survey, and 746 responded to the unwanted abortion disclosure item and were included in analyses. Over one-quarter (27%) told someone they would have preferred not to tell about their decision, mostly due to obstacles getting to the appointment-time to appointment (46%), travel distance (33%), and costs (32%). Three-quarters (74%, n=546) had at least one person in their life who supported the abortion decision "very much"; 20% had someone who supported the decision "not at all." In adjusted analyses, unwanted abortion disclosure was associated with more symptoms of depression (B = 0.62, 95% confidence interval: 0.28, 0.95), anxiety (B = 1.79; 95% CI: 0.76, 2.82) and stress (B = 1.80, 95% CI: 0.64, 1.72). People also had more symptoms of depression and stress when one or more person (B = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.27, 1.02 and B = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.15, 1.35, respectively) or the man involved in the pregnancy (B = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.16, 1.18 and B = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.13, 1.78, respectively) supported their decision "not at all" (vs "very much" support). CONCLUSION: Being forced to disclose the abortion decision due to logistical and cost constraints may be harmful to people's mental health. IMPLICATIONS: Logistical burdens such as travel, time to access care, and costs needed to access abortion may force people seeking abortion to involve others who are unsupportive in the abortion decision having negative implications for their mental health.

Reasons for Having Unprotected Sex Among Adolescents and Young Adults Accessing Reproductive Health Services.

INTRODUCTION: Although research suggests that young people are more likely to have unprotected sex than adults, their reasons for doing so are not well-understood. Among a sample of young people accessing no-cost contraceptive services, we explored their reported reasons for having unprotected sex and their willingness to have unprotected sex in the future. METHODS: We recruited sexually active assigned female at birth youth at 10 family planning clinics in the San Francisco Bay Area (n = 212). Participants completed a self-administered survey reporting their reasons for having unprotected sex and willingness to do so in the future. We used bivariate analyses to assess associations between reasons for unprotected sex and age group (adolescents ages 14-19 vs. young adults ages 20-25) and willingness to have unprotected sex in the future. RESULTS: Most young people (69%) had recently engaged in unprotected sex and 41% were willing to in the future. The most common reported reasons for having unprotected sex included not planning to have sex, a preference for unprotected sex, and difficulty using contraception. Worrying about contraceptive side effects and a preference for unprotected sex were significantly associated with a willingness to have unprotected sex in the future (p < .01). Age group was not associated with most reasons for having unprotected sex. CONCLUSIONS: Person-centered care should give attention to the range of reasons that may influence young people's sexual and contraceptive decision-making.

"No Big Deal": A Qualitative Study of Pharmacists' Perspectives on Dispensing Mifepristone for Medication Abortion.

INTRODUCTION: Until December 2021, the United States Food and Drug Administration impeded abortion access by restricting pharmacists from dispensing mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortion. This study aimed to explore pharmacists' perspectives on dispensing mifepristone. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with pharmacists before and after participating in a pilot project where mifepristone was dispensed from their pharmacies. We thematically coded all interview transcripts, then summarized emergent themes related to pharmacists' support, comfort, experiences, and concerns around dispensing mifepristone. RESULTS: Between May 2018 and July 2020, we interviewed 29 pharmacists (22 at baseline and 15 at follow-up, with 8 completing both interviews) from 5 pharmacies. At both baseline and follow-up, interviewees strongly supported pharmacists dispensing mifepristone, feeling it would improve quality of care by providing more convenient medication abortion access and streamlined service delivery and take advantage of pharmacists' expertise and availability. All pharmacists interviewed at follow-up reported dispensing mifepristone except two who were willing but did not have the opportunity. Pharmacists experienced few challenges dispensing mifepristone. Their main concern was perceived discomfort that other pharmacists and pharmacy staff may experience, particularly in conservative areas or small pharmacies where pharmacists' refusal to dispense mifepristone could impede abortion access. CONCLUSIONS: Most pharmacists supported dispensing mifepristone and were comfortable doing so after education on mifepristone and medication abortion. They dispensed mifepristone without difficulty, in a similar process as dispensing other medications. With the recent removal of U.S. Food and Drug Administration restrictions prohibiting it, our findings support the feasibility of pharmacists dispensing mifepristone.

A cross-sectional study examining consideration of self-managed abortion among people seeking facility-based care in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: With increasing restrictions on abortion across the United States, we sought to understand whether people seeking abortion would consider ending their pregnancy on their own if unable to access a facility-based abortion. METHODS: From January to June 2019, we surveyed patients seeking abortion at 4 facilities in 3 US states. We explored consideration of self-managed abortion (SMA) using responses to the question: "Would you consider ending this pregnancy on your own if you are unable to obtain care at a health care facility?" We used multivariable Poisson regression to assess associations between individual sociodemographic, pregnancy and care-seeking characteristics and prevalence of considering SMA. In bivariate Poisson models, we also explored whether consideration of SMA differed by specific obstacles to abortion care. RESULTS: One-third (34%) of 741 participants indicated they would definitely or probably consider ending the pregnancy on their own if unable to obtain care at a facility. Consideration of SMA was higher among those who reported no health insurance (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 1.66; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.12-2.44), described the pregnancy as unintended (aPR = 1.53; 95% CI 1.08-2.16), were seeking abortion due to concerns about their own physical or mental health (aPR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.02, 2.20), or experienced obstacles that delayed their abortion care seeking (aPR = 2.26, 95% CI 1.49, 3.40). Compared to those who would not consider SMA, participants who would consider SMA expressed higher difficulty finding an abortion facility (35 vs. 27%, p = 0.019), figuring out how to get to the clinic (29 vs 21%, p = 0.021) and needing multiple clinic visits (23 vs 17%, p = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: One in three people seeking facility-based abortion would consider SMA if unable to obtain abortion care at a facility. As abortion access becomes increasingly restricted in the US, SMA may become more common. Future research should continue to monitor people's consideration and use of SMA and ensure that they have access to safe and effective methods.

Trends In Self-Pay Charges And Insurance Acceptance For Abortion In The United States, 2017-20.

The Hyde Amendment prevents federal funds, including Medicaid, from covering abortion care, and many states have legal restrictions that prevent private insurance plans from covering abortion. As a result, most people pay for abortion out of pocket. We examined patient self-pay charges for three abortion types (medication abortion, first-trimester procedural abortion, and second-trimester abortion), as well as facilities' acceptance of health insurance, during the period 2017-20. We found that during this time, median patient charges increased for medication abortion (from $495 to $560) and first-trimester procedural abortion (from $475 to $575) but not second-trimester abortion (from $935 to $895). The proportion of facilities that accept insurance decreased over time (from 89 percent to 80 percent). We noted substantial regional variation, with the South having lower costs and lower insurance acceptance. Charges for first-trimester procedural abortions are increasing, and acceptance of health insurance is declining. According to the Federal Reserve, one-quarter of Americans could not pay for a $400 emergency expense solely with the money in their bank accounts-an amount lower than any abortion cost in 2020. Lifting Hyde restrictions and requiring public and private health insurance to cover this essential, time-sensitive health service without copays or deductibles would greatly reduce the financial burden of abortion.

Abortion service availability during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from a national census of abortion facilities in the U.S.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the impact of COVID-19 on abortion services in all 50 United States states and the District of Columbia. STUDY DESIGN: ANSIRH's Abortion Facility Database is a systematic collection of data on all publicly-advertising abortion facilities in the United States, updated annually through online searches and mystery shopper phone calls. Research staff updated the database in May-August 2020, assessing the number of facilities that closed, limited or stopped providing abortions, and provided telehealth options in summer 2020 due to COVID-19.  We describe these changes using frequencies and highlighting themes and examples from coded qualitative data. RESULTS: Located primarily in the South and Midwest, 24 of 751 facilities that were open in 2019 temporarily closed due to the pandemic, with 9 still closed by August 2020. Other facilities described suspending abortions, referring abortion patients to other facilities, or limiting services to medication abortion. While most facilities required in-person visits for reasons like state abortion restrictions, 22% (n = 150) offered phone or telehealth consultations, no-test visits, or medication abortion by mail to reduce or eliminate patient time in the clinic. Some facilities used creative strategies to reduce COVID-19 risk like allowing patients to wait for visits in their cars or offering drive-through medication pick-up. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic caused several disruptions to abortion service availability, including closures. To reduce in-person visit time, some clinics shifted to offering medication abortion (versus procedural) or telehealth. While the pandemic and abortion restrictions increased barriers to abortion provision, facilities were resilient and adapted to provide safe care for their patients. IMPLICATIONS: Barriers to abortion access were exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in areas of the country with more restrictive policies toward abortion. Telehealth care protocols offered by many abortion facilities provide an option to reduce or eliminate in-person visits.

Pharmacists' knowledge, perspectives, and experiences with mifepristone dispensing for medication abortion.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) restricts dispensing of mifepristone for medication abortion to certified health care providers at clinical facilities, thus prohibiting pharmacist dispensing. Allowing mifepristone dispensing by pharmacists could improve access to medication abortion. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of pharmacists dispensing mifepristone to patients who have undergone evaluation for eligibility and counseling for medication abortion by a clinician. METHODS: Before providing a study training on medication abortion, we administered baseline surveys to pharmacists who participated in a multisite mifepristone-dispensing intervention. The survey assessed medication abortion knowledge-using a 15-item score-and perceptions about the benefits and challenges of the model. We administered follow-up surveys in the study's final month that also assessed the pharmacists' satisfaction and experiences with mifepristone dispensing. To investigate the association of the study intervention with the pharmacists' knowledge, perceptions, and experiences dispensing mifepristone, we conducted multivariable linear regression analyses using generalized estimating equation models, accounting for clustering by individual. RESULTS: Among the 72 pharmacists invited from 6 pharmacies, 47 (65%) completed the baseline surveys, and 56 (78%) received training. At the study's end (mean 18 months later), 43 of the 56 pharmacists who received training (77%) completed the follow-up surveys. At follow-up, 36 (83%) respondents were very or somewhat satisfied with mifepristone dispensing, and 24 (56%) reported experiencing no challenges dispensing mifepristone. Four (6%) of the 72 pharmacists invited objected to participating in mifepristone dispensing. In regression analyses, average knowledge scores, perceived ease of implementation, and level of support for the pharmacist-dispensing model were higher at follow-up (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Most pharmacists were willing to be trained, dispensed mifepristone with few challenges when given the opportunity, were satisfied with the model, and had higher knowledge levels at follow-up. Our findings support removal of FDA's restriction on pharmacist dispensing of mifepristone.

Pre-Abortion Informed Consent Through Telemedicine vs. in Person: Differences in Patient Demographics and Visit Satisfaction.

PURPOSE: Utah law requires patients to have a face-to-face "informed consent" visit at least 72 hours prior to abortion. Planned Parenthood Association of Utah (PPAU) offers this visit via telemedicine as an alternative to an in-person visit, which can require burdensome travel. This novel study identifies factors associated with using telemedicine for informed consent, patients' reasons for using it, and experiences with it, compared to in-person informed consent. METHODS: In 2017 and 2018, patients 18 years and older seeking abortion at PPAU completed a self-administered online survey about their experiences with the informed consent visit. We used linear and logistic regression models to compare participants' demographic characteristics by informed consent visit type, and descriptive statistics to describe reasons for using each visit type and experiences with the visit. Multivariable logistic regression models examined associations between visit type and satisfaction. RESULTS: Responses from 166 telemedicine patients and 217 in-person informed consent patients indicate that telemedicine participants would have had to travel significantly further than in-person participants traveled to attend the visit at the clinic (mean of 65 miles versus 21 miles, p < .001). In multivariable analyses, telemedicine participants had higher odds of being "very satisfied" with the visit (aOR, 2,89; 95% CI: 1.93-4.32) and "very comfortable" asking questions during the visit (aOR, 3.76; 95% CI: 2.58-5.49), compared to participants who attended in-person visits. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine offers a convenient, acceptable option for mandated pre-abortion informed consent visits and reduces the burden of additional travel and associated barriers for some patients, particularly those who live further away from clinics.

Medication Abortion With Pharmacist Dispensing of Mifepristone.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate effectiveness and acceptability of medication abortion with mifepristone dispensed by pharmacists. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study at eight clinical sites and pharmacies in California and Washington State from July 2018 to March 2020. Pharmacists at participating pharmacies underwent a 1-hour training on medication abortion. We approached patients who had already been evaluated, counseled, and consented for medication abortion per standard of care. Patients interested in study participation gave consent, and the clinician electronically sent a prescription to the pharmacy for mifepristone 200 mg orally, followed 24-48 hours later by misoprostol 800 micrograms buccally. Participants were sent web-based surveys about their experience and outcomes on days 2 and 14 after enrollment and had routine follow-up with study sites. We extracted demographic and clinical data, including abortion outcome and adverse events, from medical records. We performed multivariable logistic regression to assess the association of pharmacy experience and other covariates with satisfaction. RESULTS: We enrolled 266 participants and obtained clinical outcome information for 262 (98.5%), of whom two reported not taking either medication. Of the 260 participants with abortion outcome information, 252 (96.9%) and 237 (91.2%) completed day 2 and 14 surveys, respectively. Complete medication abortion (primary outcome) occurred for 243 participants (93.5%, 95% CI 89.7-96.1%). Four participants (1.5%, 95% CI 0.4-3.9%) had an adverse event, none of which was serious or related to pharmacist dispensing. In the day 2 survey, 91.3% (95% CI 87.1-94.4%) of participants reported satisfaction with the pharmacy experience. In the day 14 survey, 84.4% (95% CI 79.1-88.8%) reported satisfaction with the medication abortion experience. Those reporting being very satisfied with the pharmacy experience had higher odds of reporting overall satisfaction with medication abortion (adjusted odds ratio 2.96, 95% CI 1.38-6.32). CONCLUSION: Pharmacist dispensing of mifepristone for medication abortion is effective and acceptable to patients, with a low prevalence of adverse events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03320057.

The Role of Health Care Providers in Young Women's Attitudes about and Willingness to Use Emergency Contraceptive Pills.

BACKGROUND: Emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) are an underused resource among adolescent and young adult women who have unprotected sex. This analysis examines young women's attitudes about and willingness to use ECPs, with particular attention to their experiences with health care providers. METHODS: Sexually active young women (ages 15-25, assigned female at birth, N = 212) completed a self-administered survey at 10 family planning clinics in the San Francisco Bay Area. Participants reported attitudes about ECP effectiveness, safety, effect on sex drive, and whether it should not be taken often, and their willingness to use ECPs in the next 3 months. The predictors of interest were past and current contraceptive experiences with health care providers. Data were analyzed through descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression analyses controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, prior contraceptive use, pregnancy history, and pregnancy intentions. RESULTS: Most young women agreed that ECPs are effective at preventing pregnancy (75%) and safe to use (71%); few reported that they reduce sex drive (11%). Yet, the majority (62%) believed ECPs should not be taken often and only 35% reported willingness to use ECPs. In multivariable analyses, more positive health care experiences were associated with more positive attitudes about ECP safety, less concern that ECPs should not be taken often, and greater willingness to use ECPs (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Health care providers play an important role in the acceptance and provision of ECPs, especially for young women who prefer ECPs over other contraceptive methods. In particular, providers can use the contraceptive visit as an opportunity to destigmatize repeat ECP use.

Impact on Healthy Behaviors of Group Obesity Management Visits in Middle School Health Centers.

This mixed-methods community-based participatory pilot study examined the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of group obesity management visits offered through school-based health centers. The study was implemented through an academic-community partnership in three school health centers serving primarily Latinx and African American youth. Participants (n = 71) completed pre- and post-surveys about intention to change diet and exercise habits, knowledge and self-efficacy related to healthy eating, and social support. Focus groups were conducted after the intervention and 18 months later. Group visits were feasible and highly valued by study participants. Quantitative results showed a significant decrease in soda consumption, increased support from classmates, and an increased number of exercise days. In focus groups, youth endorsed cooking, tasting, and shopping activities, noted the importance of family involvement in behavior change, and stated that stress reduction mindfulness exercises helped to change eating habits. Implications for school-based health care and school nursing are discussed.

"It's Worked Well for Me": Young Women's Reasons for Choosing Lower-Efficacy Contraceptive Methods.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To understand the diverse reasons why some young women choose contraceptive methods that are less effective at preventing pregnancy, including condoms, withdrawal, and emergency contraception pills, even when more effective contraceptive methods are made available to them. DESIGN: In-depth interviews with young women at family planning clinics in July-November 2016. Interview data were thematically coded and analyzed using an iterative approach. SETTING: Two youth-serving family planning clinics serving predominantly Latinx and African American communities in the San Francisco Bay Area, California. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-two young women ages 15-25 years who recently accessed emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Young women's experiences using different methods of contraception, with specific attention to methods that are less effective at preventing pregnancy. RESULTS: Young women reported having previously used a range of higher- and lower-efficacy contraceptive methods. In interviews, they described affirmative values that drive their decision to use lower-efficacy methods, including: a preference for flexibility and spontaneity over continual contraceptive use, an emphasis on protecting one's body, and satisfaction with the method's effectiveness at preventing pregnancy. Some young women described using a combination of lower-efficacy methods to reduce their pregnancy risk. CONCLUSION: Young women make contraceptive decisions on the basis of preferences and values that include, but are not limited to, effectiveness at preventing pregnancy. These reasons are salient in their lives and need to be recognized as valid by sexual health care providers to ensure that young women receive ongoing high-quality care.

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.