User-Centered Development of a Patient Decision Aid for Choice of Early Abortion Method: Multi-Cycle Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: People seeking abortion in early pregnancy have the choice between medication and procedural options for care. The choice is preference-sensitive-there is no clinically superior option and the choice depends on what matters most to the individual patient. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are shared decision-making tools that support people in making informed, values-aligned health care choices. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop and evaluate the usability of a web-based PtDA for the Canadian context, where abortion care is publicly funded and available without legal restriction. METHODS: We used a systematic, user-centered design approach guided by principles of integrated knowledge translation. We first developed a prototype using available evidence for abortion seekers' decisional needs and the risks, benefits, and consequences of each option. We then refined the prototype through think-aloud interviews with participants at risk of unintended pregnancy ("patient" participants). Interviews were audio-recorded and documented through field notes. Finally, we conducted a web-based survey of patients and health care professionals involved with abortion care, which included the System Usability Scale. We used content analysis to identify usability issues described in the field notes and open-ended survey questions, and descriptive statistics to summarize participant characteristics and close-ended survey responses. RESULTS: A total of 61 individuals participated in this study. Further, 11 patients participated in think-aloud interviews. Overall, the response to the PtDA was positive; however, the content analysis identified issues related to the design, language, and information about the process and experience of obtaining abortion care. In response, we adapted the PtDA into an interactive website and revised it to include consistent and plain language, additional information (eg, pain experience narratives), and links to additional resources on how to find an abortion health care professional. In total, 25 patients and 25 health care professionals completed the survey. The mean System Usability Scale score met the threshold for good usability among both patient and health care professional participants. Most participants felt that the PtDA was user-friendly (patients: n=25, 100%; health care professionals: n=22, 88%), was not missing information (patients: n=21, 84%; health care professionals: n=18, 72%), and that it was appropriate for patients to complete the PtDA before a consultation (patients: n=23, 92%; health care professionals: n=23, 92%). Open-ended responses focused on improving usability by reducing the length of the PtDA and making the website more mobile-friendly. CONCLUSIONS: We systematically designed the PtDA to address an unmet need to support informed, values-aligned decision-making about the method of abortion. The design process responded to a need identified by potential users and addressed unique sensitivities related to reproductive health decision-making.

Effect of a Legal Clinic Program Within an Urban Primary Health Care Center on Social Determinants of Health: A Program Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living in poverty often visit primary healthcare clinics for health problems stemming from unmet legal needs. We examined the impact of a medical-legal partnership on improving the social determinants of health (SDoH), health-related quality of life, and perceived health status of attendees of a Legal Clinic Program (LCP). METHODS: This was a pre-post program evaluation of a weekly LCP established within an urban primary healthcare clinic to provide free legal consultation. Patients aged 18 years or older were either approached or referred to complete a screening tool to identify potential legal needs. Those identified with potential legal needs were offered an appointment with LCP lawyers who provided legal counsel, referrals, and services. For those who attended the LCP, changes in SDoH and health indicators were collected via a self-reported survey 6 months after they attended the LCP and compared to their baseline scores using paired t-tests, McNemar's test for paired proportions, and the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for related samples. RESULTS: During the 6-month evaluation period, 31 participants attended the LCP and completed both the baseline and 6-month surveys; 67.8% were female, 64.5% were white, 90.3% were not working full-time, and 61.3% had a household income of $700 to 1800 per month. At follow-up, 25.8% were receiving at least 1 new benefit and there was a statistically significant reduction in food insecurity (35.5% vs 9.7%, P < .05). Also, perceived health status using the visual analog scale (ranges from 0 to 100) significantly improved from 42.5 points (SD = 25.3) at baseline to 56.6 points (SD = 19.6) after 6 months (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The LCP has the potential to improve the health and wellbeing of patients in primary healthcare clinics by addressing unmet legal needs and SDoH.

Assessment of relevance and actual implementation of person-centeredness in healthcare and social support services for women with unintended pregnancy in Germany (CarePreg): results of expert workshops.

INTRODUCTION: Person-centeredness is a key principle in the German healthcare system. However, access to high-quality care for women with unintended pregnancy is limited due to social stigma and legal restrictions. There is little research on the adoption of person-centeredness in care for women with unintended pregnancy. The aim of this study was to analyze relevance and actual implementation of dimensions of person-centeredness in psycho-social and medical abortion care from the view of abortion care providers. METHODS: Counselors and gynecologist working in psycho-social or medical abortion care participated in one of two digital workshops. Discussions were semi-structured based on the 16 dimensions of an integrative model of person-centeredness, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. During qualitative content analysis, deductive categories based on the integrative model of person-centeredness were applied and inductive categories were developed. Additionally, participants rated relevance and actual implementation of the dimensions in an online survey. RESULTS: The 18 workshop participants most intensively discussed the dimensions "access to care", "person-centered characteristics of healthcare providers" and "personally tailored information". Four additional categories on a macro level ("stigmatization of women with unintended pregnancy", "stigmatization of healthcare providers", "political and legal aspects" and "corona pandemic") were identified. Most dimensions were rated as highly relevant but implementation status was described as rather low. CONCLUSIONS: In Germany, high quality person-centered care for women with unintended pregnancy is insufficiently implemented through limited access to information, a lack of abortion care providers, and stigmatization. There is a need for changes in health care structures to enable nationwide person-centered care for women with unintended pregnancy. Those changes include a more easy access to evidence-based information and person-centered abortion care, more education on abortion care for healthcare providers, integration of topics of abortion care in medical schools and promotion of de-stigmatizing actions to enable abortions as part of the general healthcare.

Deaths among Women of Reproductive Age: an Explorative Case Study among Abortion Seekers.

In Nepal, abortion was legalized in 2002. Yet many women are denied abortion services. Women denied abortion services may either continue their pregnancies or find abortion care elsewhere. However, what is not known is the consequences on women, and their children after accessing abortion services or after being denied abortion services. This comment aims to understand the cause of death of women who sought abortion services between 2019 and 2020 and were enrolled in a longitudinal nationwide study of the consequences of legal abortion access in Nepal. Women were interviewed 6 weeks and every 6 months for 3 years after seeking abortion. During the follow-up interviews, the field research assistants were informed about the death of the clients. Once the death was reported, a trained senior research staff visited the deceased persons house and interviewed family members including husbands, maternal parents or in-laws to explore the cause of death. A total of nine deaths were reported between April 2019 and December 2022. Out of nine deceased women, four received abortions while five of them were initially denial abortion services. The majority of the deaths were due to suicide followed by tuberculosis. None of the deaths were caused by abortion or birth. Keywords: Death; Nepal; reproductive ages; womens health.

The FDA in the Crosshairs-Science, Politics, and Abortion.

In this Viewpoint, the Supreme Court case FDA v AHM is used to illustrate the tension the FDA faces between science and politics, and state authority over abortion vs federal authority over which drugs may be marketed nationwide.

Potential consequences of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.

OBJECTIVE: In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court released a landmark decision in which they held that the right to abortion is not protected by the U.S. Constitution, ending almost 50 years of federally legal abortion in the United States. Because prior research demonstrates linkages between reproductive health and substance use at multiple socioecological levels, in this special section, we present studies that take a broad scope to understanding how addictive behaviors and reproduction-related behaviors, options, and access to care interrelate across a variety of contexts. METHOD: In this introduction, the guest editors detail the impetus for this special section, provide a brief overview of the present studies, discuss policy and intervention implications, and suggest future research directions. RESULTS: The five studies presented in this special section span a wide range of populations, methods, and substance use and reproduction-related issues, including reasons for past abortions among women with opioid use disorder, alcohol effects on men's condom use resistance, considerations regarding alcohol-involved rape on implementation of "rape exceptions" to abortion bans, the role of early exposure to substance use and sexual abuse on reproductive health outcomes, and the effects of exposure to abortion-related media coverage on alcohol use intentions following the Supreme Court decision. CONCLUSIONS: The studies in this special section highlight the ways in which substance use and reproductive health are inextricably intertwined. Recent and future changes in reproductive health legislation and policy underscore the critical need for continued empirical inquiry into these intersecting public health concerns. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Reproductive Planning: Unintended Pregnancy.

Unintended pregnancy is seen commonly in the family medicine setting. It is defined as a pregnancy that is mistimed (occurring sooner than wanted) or unwanted (not desired at that time or any time in the future). Approximately 45% of all US pregnancies are unintended. Childbirth resulting from an undesired pregnancy has been associated with adverse maternal and child health outcomes. Clinicians should be prepared to manage unplanned pregnancies, including dating pregnancies and discussing pregnancy options. Pregnancy options counseling entails discussing the options to parent, make an adoption plan, or undergo an abortion. Because of the complexity around pregnancy intentions, a framework that places patients at the center of their reproductive decisions and engages them in collaborative decision-making during options counseling is paramount. Patients commonly seek abortion, which is considered essential health care. Because of the current legal climate surrounding abortion in many states, patients may opt to use abortion drugs without licensed clinician oversight, called self-managed medication abortion, which has been shown to be safe and effective. No states require clinicians to report known or suspected self-managed medication abortion.

Evaluation of patient health outcomes of a student-run free clinic in East Harlem.

BACKGROUND: Most United States medical schools have affiliated student-run free clinics, but the quality of services provided in such contexts compared to national metrics is unknown. This study determines whether a student-run, attending-supervised free clinic servicing a low-income and minority race patient population in New York City can meet national metrics of care. METHODS: Through chart review from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020, patient outcomes and service utilization in the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set were examined and compared to national rates of patients using Medicaid HMO or Medicare. Patients are ≥ 21 years of age, residents of East Harlem, and ineligible for health insurance because of legal residency requirements. The majority identify as Hispanic and speak Spanish as their primary language. All patients who were seen in the clinic during the 2020 calendar year were included. The primary study outcome is the number of Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set measures in which patients, seen in a student-run free clinic, meet or exceed national comparisons. RESULTS: The healthcare outcomes of 238 patients, mean age 47.8 years and 54.6% female, were examined in 18 Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set measures. The student-run free clinic met or exceeded national metrics in 16 out of 18 categories. CONCLUSIONS: The student-run free clinic met or exceeded the national standard of care according to national metrics. Evidence-based priorities have been clarified for future improvement. Other student-run free clinics should similarly evaluate the quality of their services.

Cross-sectional analysis of primary care clinics' policies, practices, and availability of patient support services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare accessibility and utilization are important social determinants of health. Lack of access to healthcare, including missed or no-show appointments, can have negative health effects and be costly to patients and providers. Various office-based approaches and community partnerships can address patient access barriers. OBJECTIVES: (1) To understand provider perceptions of patient barriers; (2) to describe the policies and practices used to address late or missed appointments, and (3) to evaluate access to patient support services, both in-clinic and with community partners. METHODS: Mailed cross-sectional survey with online response option, sent to all Nebraska primary care clinics (n = 577) conducted April 2020 and January through April 2021. Chi-square tests compared rural-urban differences; logistic regression of clinical factors associated with policies and support services computed odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Response rate was 20.3% (n = 117), with 49 returns in 2020. Perceived patient barriers included finances, higher among rural versus urban clinics (81.6% vs. 56.1%, p =.009), and time (overall 52.3%). Welcoming environment (95.5%), telephone appointment reminders (74.8%) and streamlined admissions (69.4%) were the top three clinic practices to reduce missed appointments. Telehealth was the most commonly available patient support service in rural (79.6%) and urban (81.8%, p =.90) clinics. Number of providers was positively associated with having a patient navigator/care coordinator (OR = 1.20, CI = 1.02-1.40). For each percent increase in the number of privately insured patients, the odds of providing legal aid decreased by 4% (OR = 0.96, CI = 0.92-1.00). Urban clinics were less likely than rural clinics to provide social work services (OR = 0.16, CI = 0.04-0.67) or assist with applications for government aid (OR = 0.22, CI = 0.06-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Practices to reduce missed appointments included a variety of reminders. Although finances and inability to take time off work were the most frequently reported perceived barriers for patients' access to timely healthcare, most clinics did not directly address them. Rural clinics appeared to have more community partnerships to address underlying social determinants of health, such as transportation and assistance applying for government aid. Taking such a wholistic partnership approach is an area for future study to improve patient access.

The Real Impact of the Alabama Supreme Court Decision in LePage v Center for Reproductive Medicine.

This Viewpoint breaks down the myriad ways the Alabama Supreme Court decision to declare frozen embryos as legal equivalents to children harms the health of mothers and fetuses, limits reproductive decision-making based on genetics and out-of-reach costs, and impedes research.

Abortion needs expressed on Reddit after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in the United States.

CONTEXT: Women, transgender men, and gender non-binary individuals facing unwanted pregnancy use online resources for abortion information. We sought to determine the informational and emotional needs that those seeking abortion information on Reddit expressed immediately following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs) decision in the United States. Furthermore, we aimed to understand how the Reddit community addressed these needs. METHODS: We collected posts on Reddit in the subreddit r/abortion that expressed informational or emotional needs related to the Dobbs decision created between June 24, 2022 and July 24, 2022. We identified posts using keywords including "roe," "rvw," and "trigger law" and then manually reviewed them to ensure relevance. We analyzed posts and their comments using qualitative descriptive analysis. RESULTS: One hundred and ten posts met inclusion criteria. Original posters expressed needs for legal and medical information. Posters also expressed need for logistical support, including help accessing medication abortion, traveling out of state, and financing abortion care, and emotional support in general and resulting from fear of parental disapproval and shame relating to abortion stigma. Although responders to these comments addressed these needs by offering general support, accurate information, and reliable resources, intersecting and emotional needs sometimes went unaddressed. CONCLUSION: The Dobbs decision caused confusion and panic among abortion seekers requesting guidance on r/abortion, resulting in informational and emotional needs. While the r/abortion community actively addressed needs, inherent limitations of an online forum prevented some original posters from receiving the multifaceted support they needed.

Exploring provider preference and provision of abortion methods and stigma: Secondary analysis of a United Kingdom provider survey.

INTRODUCTION: Method choice is an important component of quality abortion care and qualitative research suggests that abortion stigma can influence provider preference and provision of abortion methods. This study is the first to explore the relationships between abortion providers' method preferences, their provision of medication or instrumentation abortion or both methods, and abortion stigma. METHODS: We conducted secondary analysis of a survey of United Kingdom (UK) abortion providers (N = 172) to describe and compare providers' self-reported method preferences and provision. We used multinomial logistic regression to assess the association between method preference and provider experiences of abortion stigma (measured using a revised Abortion Provider Stigma Scale (APSS)), adjusting for relevant provider and facility characteristics. RESULTS: Almost half (52%) of providers reported that they only provided medication abortion care, while 5% only provided instrumentation abortion care and 43% provided both methods. Most (62%) preferred to provide both methods while 32% preferred to provide only medication abortion and 6% only instrumentation abortion. There was no significant difference in revised APSS scores by provider method preference or provision. DISCUSSION: Most surveyed UK abortion providers prefer to offer both methods, but over half only provide medication abortion. This may reflect patients' preferences for medication abortion, and health system and legal constraints on instrumentation abortion. Addressing these systemic constraints on method provision could expand patient choice. Providers' method preference was not significantly associated with provider stigma but future research should consider the influence of structural stigma on method provision at the health system level.

Health providers' reasons for participating in abortion care: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: There is a global shortage of health providers in abortion care. Public discourse presents abortion providers as dangerous and greedy and links 'conscience' with refusal to participate. This may discourage provision. A scoping review of empirical evidence is needed to inform public perceptions of the reasons that health providers participate in abortion. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to identify what is known about health providers' reasons for participating in abortion provision. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they included health providers' reasons for participating in legal abortion provision. Only empirical studies were eligible for inclusion. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: We searched the following databases from January 2000 until January 2022: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ScienceDirect and Centre for Agricultural and Biosciences International Abstracts. Grey literature was also searched. METHODS: Dual screening was conducted of both title/abstract and full-text articles. Health providers' reasons for provision were extracted and grouped into preliminary categories based on the existing research. These categories were revised by all authors until they sufficiently reflected the extracted data. RESULTS: From 3251 records retrieved, 68 studies were included. In descending order, reasons for participating in abortion were as follows: supporting women's choices and advocating for women's rights (76%); being professionally committed to participating in abortion (50%); aligning with personal, religious or moral values (39%); finding provision satisfying and important (33%); being influenced by workplace exposure or support (19%); responding to the community needs for abortion services (14%) and participating for practical and lifestyle reasons (8%). CONCLUSION: Abortion providers participated in abortion for a range of reasons. Reasons were mainly focused on supporting women's choices and rights; providing professional health care; and providing services that aligned with the provider's own personal, religious or moral values. The findings provided no evidence to support negative portrayals of abortion providers present in public discourse. Like conscientious objectors, abortion providers can also be motivated by conscience.

Public health and clinical implications of Dobbs v. Jackson for patients and healthcare providers: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson reversed the precedent set forth by Roe v. Wade, empowering individual states to regulate abortion care. This aftermath of this ruling has given rise to widespread bans, limiting the accessibility of abortion services for patients and impeding providers' ability to deliver a comprehensive spectrum of reproductive health services. Of particular concern is the disproportionate impact on medically underserved groups, further heightening existing social and structural disparities in reproductive health. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to broadly evaluate the clinical and public health impact of Dobbs on patients' access to abortion care and related reproductive health services, in addition to the training and clinical practice of healthcare providers. We searched eight bibliographic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Science Direct, JSTOR, and Web of Science) and three preprint servers (medRxiv, bioRxiv, and Europe PMC) using various combinations of keywords related to 'abortion', 'Dobbs', and 'Roe' on March 22, 2023. Four reviewers independently screened the studies based on pre-specified eligibility criteria and one reviewer performed data extraction for pre-identified themes. The search was conducted based on PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRSIMA-ScR) guidelines. RESULTS: Eighteen studies, comprising 12 peer-reviewed articles and 6 study abstracts, met the inclusion criteria. The studies demonstrated that Dobbs increased demand for contraception, magnified existing travel- and cost-related barriers to access, further polarized views on abortion and complex family planning on social media (e.g., Twitter), and evoked substantial concerns among medical trainees regarding their scope of practice and potential legal repercussions for providing abortion care. CONCLUSION: In the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson, further public health and clinical interventions are urgently needed to bridge disparities in abortion care and reproductive health, mitigating the deleterious consequences of this emerging public health crisis.

Perspectives of Oncologists on the Ethical Implications of Using Artificial Intelligence for Cancer Care.

Importance: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are rapidly integrating into cancer care. Understanding stakeholder views on ethical issues associated with the implementation of AI in oncology is critical to optimal deployment. Objective: To evaluate oncologists' views on the ethical domains of the use of AI in clinical care, including familiarity, predictions, explainability (the ability to explain how a result was determined), bias, deference, and responsibilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, population-based survey study was conducted from November 15, 2022, to July 31, 2023, among 204 US-based oncologists identified using the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was response to a question asking whether participants agreed or disagreed that patients need to provide informed consent for AI model use during cancer treatment decisions. Results: Of 387 surveys, 204 were completed (response rate, 52.7%). Participants represented 37 states, 120 (63.7%) identified as male, 128 (62.7%) as non-Hispanic White, and 60 (29.4%) were from academic practices; 95 (46.6%) had received some education on AI use in health care, and 45.3% (92 of 203) reported familiarity with clinical decision models. Most participants (84.8% [173 of 204]) reported that AI-based clinical decision models needed to be explainable by oncologists to be used in the clinic; 23.0% (47 of 204) stated they also needed to be explainable by patients. Patient consent for AI model use during treatment decisions was supported by 81.4% of participants (166 of 204). When presented with a scenario in which an AI decision model selected a different treatment regimen than the oncologist planned to recommend, the most common response was to present both options and let the patient decide (36.8% [75 of 204]); respondents from academic settings were more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.19-5.51). Most respondents (90.7% [185 of 204]) reported that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use. Some agreed that this responsibility was shared by physicians (47.1% [96 of 204]) or hospitals (43.1% [88 of 204]). Finally, most respondents (76.5% [156 of 204]) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools, but only 27.9% (57 of 204) were confident in their ability to identify poorly representative AI models. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional survey study, few oncologists reported that patients needed to understand AI models, but most agreed that patients should consent to their use, and many tasked patients with choosing between physician- and AI-recommended treatment regimens. These findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise.