Health services provided at the time of abortion in the US: a scoping review of the qualitative and quantitative evidence.

Objectives: While it is well documented that abortion access is associated with improved health, pregnancy-related, and socioeconomic outcomes, the association between abortion access and other reproductive health outcomes is less well described. Abortion-providing clinics also offer preventative reproductive health services. We conducted a scoping review to ascertain the extent to which preventive reproductive healthcare services (contraception, sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment, cervical cancer screening) are affected by abortion access in the United States. Methods: Researchers screened articles and extracted data from PubMed, Embase, Scopus and CINAHL. We excluded articles that did not link abortion to contraception, sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment and cervical cancer screening; or took place outside the US. Results: 5,359 papers were screened, 74 were included for full text review. Sixty-five were about contraception, seven on STIs, one on cervical cancer screening, and one on other services. The association between policies that restrict or protect abortion access and preventative health services has not been studied on a national scale. Drivers of variation were: insurance and billing policies; regulatory requirements of abortion-providing facilities, lack of staff training in clinics that did not specialize in abortion care; and limited follow up after abortion. Conclusions: Abortion--providing clinics are a highly utilized access point for reproductive health services. More research is needed to determine the public health impact of constrained abortion access on contraceptive use, STI rates and cervical cancer in regions where many abortion-providing clinics have closed. Implications: Attention should be paid to changing trends in contraceptive use, STI rates and cervical cancer as abortion-providing clinics close, this may reduce access to reproductive health services broadly.

"I Wasn't Expecting That Question": Responses to Requests for Abortion Referral at College Student Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: Women 18-24 years of age have the highest proportion of unintended pregnancies of any age group, and thus represent a significant population in need of abortion services. Prior research indicated that only half of college student health centers provide appropriate abortion referrals. Our objective was to better understand the referral experience and barriers to abortion referral at college student health centers. PROCEDURES: We conducted a "secret caller" study at all 4-year colleges in Pennsylvania between June 2017 and April 2018, using a structured script requesting abortion referral. Calls were transcribed, coded using an iteratively developed codebook, and analyzed for themes related to barriers and facilitators of abortion referral. MAIN FINDINGS: A total of 202 completed transcripts were reviewed. Themes that emerged were knowledge, experience, and comfort with abortion referral; support, empathy, and reassurance; coercion; misleading language; questioning the caller's autonomy; and institutional policy against referral. Most staff lacked knowledge and comfort with abortion referral. Although some staff members made supportive statements toward the caller, others used coercive language to try to dissuade the caller from an abortion. Many staff cited religious institutional policies against abortion referral and expressed a range of feelings about such policies. CONCLUSIONS: Abortion referrals at student health centers lack consistency. Staff members frequently did not have the knowledge needed to provide appropriate abortion referrals, used coercive language in responding to requests for referrals, and perpetuated abortion stigma. Some health staff used coercive or evasive language that further stigmatized the caller's request for an abortion referral. College health centers should improve training and resources around abortion referral to ensure they are delivering appropriate, high-quality care.

Provision of HIV preexposure prophylaxis to female patients seeking family planning services in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a scoping review to assess barriers to and facilitators of integrating HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and family planning (FP) at the patient, provider, and implementation levels, and to identify gaps in knowledge. METHODS: We conducted a search of five bibliographic databases from database inception to March 2022: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus. Two reviewers screened abstracts and full texts to determine eligibility based on a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. We categorized studies by their relevance to patient, provider, and implementation barriers, and extracted data based on prespecified elements. RESULTS: Our initial search strategy yielded 1151 results, and 34 publications were included. Barriers to PrEP implementation in family planning settings included low PrEP knowledge among patients, hesitance to take PrEP due to perceived stigma, decreased willingness of providers unfamiliar with PrEP to prescribe PrEP, and limited financial and staffing resources that make prescribing and monitoring PrEP difficult. Facilitators included robust training for providers, stigma reduction efforts, leadership engagement, and increased resources specifically in settings with processes in place that ease the process of prescribing and monitoring PrEP. CONCLUSIONS: Advances in implementation strategy development, stigma reduction, and drug development will be essential to reinforcing PrEP care in family planning settings and thereby reducing the incidence of HIV in women through highly effective pharmacologic HIV prevention methods.

Geographic Barriers Drive Disparities in Specialty Center Access for Older Adults with Huntington's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Huntington's Disease Society of America Centers of Excellence (HDSA COEs) are primary hubs for Huntington's disease (HD) research opportunities and accessing new treatments. Data on the extent to which HDSA COEs are accessible to individuals with HD, particularly those older or disabled, are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To describe persons with HD in the U.S. Medicare program and characterize this population by proximity to an HDSA COE. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries ages ≥65 with HD in 2017. We analyzed data on benefit entitlement, demographics, and comorbidities. QGis software and Google Maps Interface were employed to estimate the distance from each patient to the nearest HDSA COE, and the proportion of individuals residing within 100 miles of these COEs at the state level. RESULTS: Among 9,056 Medicare beneficiaries with HD, 54.5% were female, 83.0% were white; 48.5% were ≥65 years, but 64.9% originally qualified for Medicare due to disability. Common comorbidities were dementia (32.4%) and depression (35.9%), and these were more common in HD vs. non-HD patients. Overall, 5,144 (57.1%) lived within 100 miles of a COE. Race/ethnicity, sex, age, and poverty markers were not associated with below-average proximity to HDSA COEs. The proportion of patients living within 100 miles of a center varied from < 10% (16 states) to > 90% (7 states). Most underserved states were in the Mountain and West Central divisions. CONCLUSION: Older Medicare beneficiaries with HD are frequently disabled and have a distinct comorbidity profile. Geographical, rather than sociodemographic factors, define the HD population with limited access to HDSA COEs.