Primary care and abortion provider perspectives on mail-order medication abortion: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: This qualitative study aims to assess perspectives of clinicians and clinic staff on mail-order pharmacy dispensing for medication abortion. METHODS: Participants included clinicians and staff involved in implementing a mail-order dispensing model for medication abortion at eleven clinics in seven states as part of a prospective cohort study, which began in January 2020 (before the FDA removed the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone). From June 2021 to July 2022, we invited participants at the participating clinics, including six primary care and five abortion clinics, to complete a semi-structured video interview about their experiences. We then conducted qualitative thematic analysis of interview data, summarizing themes related to perceived benefits and concerns about the mail-order model, perceived patient interest, and potential barriers to larger-scale implementation. RESULTS: We conducted 24 interviews in total with clinicians (13 physicians and one nurse practitioner) and clinic staff (n = 10). Participants highlighted perceived benefits of the mail-order model, including its potential to expand abortion services into primary care, increase patient autonomy and privacy, and to normalize abortion services. They also highlighted key logistical, clinical, and feasibility concerns about the mail-order model, and specific challenges related to integrating abortion into primary care. CONCLUSION: Clinicians and clinic staff working in primary care and abortion clinics were optimistic that mail-order dispensing of medication abortion can improve the ability of some providers to provide abortion and enable more patients to access services. The feasibility of mail-order pharmacy dispensing of medication abortion following the Supreme Court Dobbs decision is to be determined. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: Clinicaltrials.gov. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03913104. Date of registration: first submitted on April 3, 2019 and first posted on April 12, 2019.

Comparison of No-Test Telehealth and In-Person Medication Abortion.

Importance: In the US, access to medication abortion using history-based (no-test) eligibility assessment, including through telehealth and mailing of mifepristone, has grown rapidly. Additional evidence on the effectiveness and safety of these models is needed. Objective: To evaluate whether medication abortion with no-test eligibility assessment and mailing of medications is as effective as in-person care with ultrasonography and safe overall. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective, observational study with noninferiority analysis. Sites included 4 abortion-providing organizations in Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Virginia, and Washington from May 2021 to March 2023. Eligible patients were seeking medication abortion up to and including 70 days' gestation, spoke English or Spanish, and were aged 15 years or older. Exposure: Study groups reflected the model of care selected by the patient and clinicians and included: (1) no-test (telehealth) eligibility assessment and mailing of medications (no-test + mail) (n = 228); (2) no-test eligibility assessment and pickup of medications (no-test + pickup) (n = 119); or (3) in-person with ultrasonography (n = 238). Main Outcomes and Measures: Effectiveness, defined as a complete abortion without the need for repeating the mifepristone and misoprostol regimen or a follow-up procedure, and safety, defined as an abortion-related serious adverse event, including overnight hospital admission, surgery, or blood transfusion. Outcomes were derived from patient surveys and medical records. Primary analysis focused on the comparison of the no-test + mail group with the in-person with ultrasonography group. Results: The mean age of the participants (N = 585) was 27.3 years; most identified as non-Hispanic White (48.6%) or non-Hispanic Black (28.1%). Median (IQR) gestational duration was 45 days (39-53) and comparable between study groups (P = .30). Outcome data were available for 91.8% of participants. Overall effectiveness was 94.4% (95% CI, 90.7%-99.2%) in the no-test + mail group and 93.3% (95% CI, 88.3%-98.2%) in the in-person with ultrasonography group in adjusted models (adjusted risk difference, 1.2 [95% CI, -4.1 to 6.4]), meeting the prespecified 5% noninferiority margin. Serious adverse events included overnight hospitalization (n = 4), blood transfusion (n = 2), and emergency surgery (n = 1) and were reported by 1.1% (95% CI, 0.4%-2.4%) of participants, with 3 in the no-test + mail group, 3 in the in-person with ultrasonography group, and none in the no-test + pickup group. Conclusions and Relevance: This prospective, observational study found that medication abortion obtained following no-test telehealth screening and mailing of medications was associated with similar rates of complete abortion compared with in-person care with ultrasonography and met prespecified criteria for noninferiority, with a low prevalence of adverse events.

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.

Accuracy of self-assessment of gestational duration among people seeking abortion.

BACKGROUND: Mifepristone, used together with misoprostol, is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for medication abortion through 10 weeks' gestation. Although in-person ultrasound is frequently used to establish medication abortion eligibility, previous research demonstrates that people seeking abortion early in pregnancy can accurately self-assess gestational duration using the date of their last menstrual period. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we establish the screening performance of a broader set of questions for self-assessment of gestational duration among a sample of people seeking abortion at a wide range of gestations. STUDY DESIGN: We surveyed patients seeking abortion at 7 facilities before ultrasound and compared self-assessments of gestational duration using 11 pregnancy dating questions with measurements on ultrasound. For individual pregnancy dating questions and combined questions, we established screening performance focusing on metrics of diagnostic accuracy, defined as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity (or the proportion of ineligible participants who correctly screened as ineligible for medication abortion), and proportion of false negatives (ie, the proportion of all participants who erroneously screened as eligible for medication abortion). We tested for differences in sensitivity across individual and combined questions using McNemar's test, and for differences in accuracy using the area under the receiver operating curve and Sidak adjusted P values. RESULTS: One-quarter (25%) of 1089 participants had a gestational duration of >70 days on ultrasound. Using the date of last menstrual period alone demonstrated 83.5% sensitivity (95% confidence interval, 78.4-87.9) in identifying participants with gestational durations of >70 days on ultrasound, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.85) and a proportion of false negatives of 4.0%. A composite measure of responses to questions on number of weeks pregnant, date of last menstrual period, and date they got pregnant demonstrated 89.1% sensitivity (95% confidence interval, 84.7-92.6) and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.88), with 2.7% of false negatives. A simpler question set focused on being >10 weeks or >2 months pregnant or having missed 2 or more periods had comparable sensitivity (90.7%; 95% confidence interval, 86.6-93.9) and proportion of false negatives (2.3%), but with a slightly lower area under the receiver operating curve (0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.84). CONCLUSION: In a sample representative of people seeking abortion nationally, broadening the screening questions for assessing gestational duration beyond the date of the last menstrual period resulted in improved accuracy and sensitivity of self-assessment at the 70-day threshold for medication abortion. Ultrasound assessment for medication abortion may not be necessary, especially when requiring ultrasound could increase COVID-19 risk or healthcare costs, restrict access, or limit patient choice.

Relationship between mandatory warning signs for cannabis use during pregnancy policies and birth outcomes in the Western United States.

As U.S. states legalize recreational cannabis, some enact policies requiring Mandatory Warning Signs for cannabis during pregnancy (MWS-cannabis). While previous research has found MWS for alcohol during pregnancy (MWS-alcohol) associated with increases in adverse birth outcomes, research has not examined effects of MWS-cannabis. This study uses Vital Statistics birth certificate data from June 2015 - June 2017 in seven western states and policy data from NIAAA's Alcohol Policy Information System and takes advantage of the quasi-experiment created by Washington State's enactment of MWS-cannabis in June 2016, while nearby states did not. Outcomes are birthweight, low birthweight, gestation, and preterm birth. Analyses use a Difference-in-Difference approach and compare changes in outcomes in Washington to nearby states in the process of legalizing recreational cannabis (Alaska, California, Nevada) and, as a secondary analysis, nearby states continuing to criminalize recreational cannabis (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming). Birthweight was -7.03 g lower (95% CI -10.06, -4.00) and low birthweight 0.3% higher (95% CI 0.0, 0.6) when pregnant people were exposed to MWS-cannabis than when pregnant people were not exposed to MWS-cannabis, both statistically significant (p = 0.005 and p = 0.041). Patterns for gestation, -0.014 weeks earlier (95% CI -0.038, 0.010) and preterm birth 0.2% higher (95% CI -0.2, 0.7), were similar, although not statistically significant (p = 0.168 and 0.202). The direction of findings was similar in secondary analyses, although statistical significance varied. Similar to MWS-alcohol, enacting MWS-cannabis is associated with an increase in adverse birth outcomes. The idea that MWS-cannabis provide a public health benefit is not evidence-based.

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.

"I'll just deal with this on my own": a qualitative exploration of experiences with self-managed abortion in the United States.

BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence indicates that some people seek options to terminate a pregnancy without medical assistance, but experiences doing so have largely been documented only among people accessing a clinic-based abortion. We aim to describe self-managed abortion (SMA) experiences of people recruited outside of clinics, including their motivations for SMA, pregnancy confirmation and decision-making processes, method choices, and clinical outcomes. METHODS: In 2017, we conducted 14 in-depth interviews with self-identified females of reproductive age who recently reported in an online survey administered to Ipsos' KnowledgePanel that, since 2000, they had attempted SMA while living in the United States. We asked participants about their reproductive histories, experiences seeking reproductive health care, and SMA experiences. We used an iterative process to develop codes and analyzed transcripts using thematic content analysis methods. RESULTS: Motivations and perceptions of effectiveness varied by whether participants had confirmed the pregnancy prior to SMA. Participants who confirmed their pregnancies chose SMA because it was convenient, accessible, and private. Those who did not test for pregnancy were motivated by a preference for autonomy and felt empowered by the ability to try something on their own before seeking facility-based care. Participants prioritized methods that were safe and available, though not always effective. Most used herbs or over-the-counter medications; none used self-sourced abortion medications, mifepristone and/or misoprostol. Five participants obtained facility-based abortions and one participant decided to continue the pregnancy after attempting SMA. The remaining eight reported being no longer pregnant after SMA. None of the participants sought care for  SMA complications; one participant saw a provider to confirm abortion completion. CONCLUSIONS: There are many types of SMA experiences. In addition to those who pursue SMA as a last resort (after facing barriers to facility-based care) or as a first resort (because they prefer homeopathic remedies), our findings show that some individuals view SMA as a potential interim step worth trying after suspecting pregnancy and before accessing facility-based care. These people in particular would benefit from a medication abortion product available over the counter, online, or in the form of a missed-period pill.

Some people in the United States (US) attempt to end a pregnancy on their own without medical supervision. What we know about this experience comes from studies focused on people who go to clinics. In this study, we conducted 14 interviews with self-identified women ages 18­49 who recently reported attempting to end a pregnancy on their own and who were recruited outside of the clinic setting. We asked participants about their fertility histories, experiences seeking reproductive health care, and experiences ending a pregnancy without medical assistance. Those who took a pregnancy test and then chose to end the pregnancy on their own did so because it was convenient, accessible, and private. Those who did not test for pregnancy felt empowered by the ability to try something on their own before seeking facility-based care. All participants prioritized methods that were safe and available, though not always effective. After they attempted to end the pregnancy on their own, five participants accessed abortion care in facilities, one decided to continue the pregnancy, and eight were no longer pregnant. Our findings show that, in addition to people who end a pregnancy on their own as a last resort (after facing barriers to facility-based care) or as a first resort (because of preferences for homeopathic methods), a third group values having an interim step to try after suspecting pregnancy and before accessing facility-based care. These people would particularly benefit from a medication abortion product available over the counter, online, or in the form of a missed-period pill.

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.

Exploring young women's reasons for adopting intrauterine or oral emergency contraception in the United States: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The recent focus on increasing access to long-acting reversible contraceptive methods has often overlooked the diverse reasons why women may choose less effective methods even when significant access barriers have been removed. While the copper intrauterine device (IUD) is considered an acceptable alternative to emergency contraception pills (ECPs), it is unclear to what extent low rates of provision and use are due to patient preferences versus structural access barriers. This study explores factors that influence patients' choice between ECPs and the copper IUD as EC, including prior experiences with contraception and attitudes toward EC methods, in settings where both options are available at no cost. METHODS: We telephone-interviewed 17 patients seeking EC from three San Francisco Bay Area youth-serving clinics that offered the IUD as EC and ECPs as standard practice, regarding their experiences choosing an EC method. We thematically coded all interview transcripts, then summarized the themes related to reasons for choosing ECPs or the IUD as EC. RESULTS: Ten participants left their EC visit with ECPs and seven with the IUD as EC option. Women chose ECPs because they were familiar and easily accessible. Reasons for not adopting the copper IUD included having had prior negative experiences with the IUD, concerns about its side effects and the placement procedure, and lack of awareness about the copper IUD. Women who chose the IUD as EC did so primarily because of its long-term efficacy, invisibility, lack of hormones, longer window of post-coital utility, and a desire to not rely on ECPs. Women who chose the IUD as EC had not had prior negative experiences with the IUD, had already been interested in the IUD, and were ready and able to have it placed that day. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that women have varied and well-considered reasons for choosing each EC method. Both ECPs and the copper IUD are important and acceptable EC options, each with their own features offering benefits to patients. Efforts to destigmatize repeated use of ECPs and validate women's choice of either EC method are needed to support women in their EC method decision-making.

Medical and midwifery students' views on the use of conscientious objection in abortion care, following legal reform in Chile: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: In August 2017, Chile lifted its complete ban on abortion by permitting abortion in three limited circumstances: 1) to save a woman's life, 2) lethal fetal anomaly, and 3) rape. The new law allows regulated use of conscientious objection (CO) in abortion care, including allowing institutions to register as objectors. This study assesses medical and midwifery students' support for CO, following legal reform. METHODS: From October 2017 to May 2018, we surveyed medical and midwifery students from seven universities located in Santiago, Chile. Universities included 4 secular (2 public and 2 private) and 3 private religiously-affiliated universities; all offering medical degrees with a specialization in obstetrics and gynecology (ob-gyn) and five offering midwifery degrees. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) to identify characteristics associated with student support for CO, intentions to use CO to refuse to care for someone seeking abortion, and support for CO at the institutional level. RESULTS: 333 of the 413 eligible students who opened the survey, completed the questions on conscientious objection; 26% were seeking medical degrees with an ob-gyn specialty, 25% were seeking midwifery degrees, and 49% were seeking medical degrees and had not yet decided their specialty. While nearly all endorse requirements for conscientious objecting clinicians to inform (92%) and refer (91%) abortion-seeking patients, a minority (18%) would personally use conscientious objection to avoid caring for a patient seeking abortion (12% secular and 39% religious university students). About half of religious-university students (52%) and one-fifth of secular-university (20%) students support objections at the institutional level. CONCLUSIONS: Most students support the regulated use of CO which preserves patients' access to abortion care. Religious-university student views on the use of conscientious objection in abortion care are discordant with those of their institutions which currently support institutional-level objections.

Effects of Carrying an Unwanted Pregnancy to Term on Women's Existing Children.

OBJECTIVE: To examine how receiving or being denied a wanted abortion affects the subsequent development, health, caregiving, and socioeconomics of women's existing children at time of seeking abortion. STUDY DESIGN: The Turnaway Study is a 5-year longitudinal study with a quasi-experimental design. Women were recruited from January 2008 to December 2010 from 30 abortion facilities throughout the US. We interviewed women regarding the health and development of their living children via telephone 1 week after seeking an abortion and semiannually for 5 years. We compare the youngest existing children younger than the age 5 years of women denied abortion because they presented for care beyond a facility's gestational limit (Turnaway group) with those of women who received the abortion (Abortion group). We used mixed-effects regression models to test for differences in outcomes of existing children of women in the Turnaway group (n = 55 children) compared with existing children of women in the Abortion group (n = 293 children). RESULTS: From 6 months to 4.5 years after their mothers sought abortions, existing children of women denied abortions had lower mean child development scores (adjusted ß -0.04, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.00) and were more likely to live below the Federal Poverty Level (aOR 3.74, 95% CI 1.59-8.79) than the children of women who received a wanted abortion. There were no significant differences in child health or time spent with a caregiver other than the mother. CONCLUSIONS: Denying women a wanted abortion may have negative developmental and socioeconomic consequences for their existing children.

Socioeconomic Outcomes of Women Who Receive and Women Who Are Denied Wanted Abortions in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the socioeconomic consequences of receipt versus denial of abortion. METHODS: Women who presented for abortion just before or after the gestational age limit of 30 abortion facilities across the United States between 2008 and 2010 were recruited and followed for 5 years via semiannual telephone interviews. Using mixed effects models, we evaluated socioeconomic outcomes for 813 women by receipt or denial of abortion care. RESULTS: In analyses that adjusted for the few baseline differences, women denied abortions who gave birth had higher odds of poverty 6 months after denial (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.77; P < .001) than did women who received abortions; women denied abortions were also more likely to be in poverty for 4 years after denial of abortion. Six months after denial of abortion, women were less likely to be employed full time (AOR = 0.37; P = .001) and were more likely to receive public assistance (AOR = 6.26; P < .001) than were women who obtained abortions, differences that remained significant for 4 years. CONCLUSIONS: Women denied an abortion were more likely than were women who received an abortion to experience economic hardship and insecurity lasting years. Laws that restrict access to abortion may result in worsened economic outcomes for women.

Effectiveness of School-Based Teen Pregnancy Prevention Programs in the USA: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

School-based programs have been a mainstay of youth pregnancy prevention efforts in the USA. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess their effectiveness. Eligible studies evaluated the effect on pregnancy rates of programs delivered in elementary, middle, or high schools in the USA and Canada, published between January 1985 and September 2016. The primary outcome was pregnancy; secondary outcomes were delay in sexual initiation, condom use, and oral contraception use. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs with comparator groups were eligible. We developed a comprehensive search strategy, applied to major bibliographic databases, article bibliographies, gray literature, and contact with authors. We calculated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each outcome and pooled data in random effects meta-analysis. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess evidence quality. Ten RCTs and 11 non-RCTs conducted from 1984 to 2016 yielded 30 unique pooled comparisons for pregnancy, of which 24 were not statistically significant. Six showed statistically significant changes in pregnancy rates: two with increased risk (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.02-1.65; and RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.10-1.75) and four with decreased risk ranging from RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41-0.77, to RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58-0.96. All studies were at high risk of bias, and the quality of evidence was low or very low. Identified evidence indicated no consistent difference in rates of pregnancies between intervention recipients and controls.

Do School-Based Programs Prevent HIV and Other Sexually Transmitted Infections in Adolescents? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

We systematically reviewed the literature to assess the effectiveness of school-based programs to prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STI) among adolescents in the USA. We searched six databases including PubMed for studies published through May 2017. Eligible studies included youth ages 10-19 years and assessed any school-based programs in the USA that reported changes in HIV/STI incidence or testing. We used Cochrane tool to assess the risk of bias and GRADE to determine the evidence quality for each outcome. Three RCTs and six non-RCTs, describing seven interventions, met study inclusion criteria. No study reported changes in HIV incidence or prevalence. One comprehensive intervention, assessed in a non-RCT and delivered to pre-teens, reduced STI incidence into adulthood (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23-0.56). A non-RCT examining chlamydia and gonorrhea incidence before and after a condom availability program found a significant effect at the city level among young men 3 years later (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23-0.80). The remaining four interventions found no effect. The effect on STI prevalence was also not significant (pooled RR 0.83 from two non-RCTs, RR 0.70 from one RCT). Only one non-RCT showed an increase in HIV testing (RR 3.19, 95% CI 1.24-8.24). The quality of evidence for all outcomes was very low. Studies, including the RCTs, were of low methodological quality and had mixed findings, thus offering no persuasive evidence for the effectiveness of school-based programs. The most effective intervention spanned 6 years, was a social development-based intervention with multiple components, rather than a sex education program, and started in first grade.

Mental Health Diagnoses 3 Years After Receiving or Being Denied an Abortion in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: We set out to assess the occurrence of new depression and anxiety diagnoses in women 3 years after they sought an abortion. METHODS: We conducted semiannual telephone interviews of 956 women who sought abortions from 30 US facilities. Adjusted multivariable discrete-time logistic survival models examined whether the study group (women who obtained abortions just under a facility's gestational age limit, who were denied abortions and carried to term, who were denied abortions and did not carry to term, and who received first-trimester abortions) predicted depression or anxiety onset during seven 6-month time intervals. RESULTS: The 3-year cumulative probability of professionally diagnosed depression was 9% to 14%; for anxiety it was 10% to 15%, with no study group differences. Women in the first-trimester group and women denied abortions who did not give birth had greater odds of new self-diagnosed anxiety than did women who obtained abortions just under facility gestational limits. CONCLUSIONS: Among women seeking abortions near facility gestational limits, those who obtained abortions were at no greater mental health risk than were women who carried an unwanted pregnancy to term.

The effect of abortion on having and achieving aspirational one-year plans.

BACKGROUND: Women commonly report seeking abortion in order to achieve personal life goals. Few studies have investigated whether an abortion enables women to achieve such goals. METHODS: Data are from the Turnaway Study, a prospective cohort study of women recruited from 30 abortion facilities across the US. The sample included women in one of four groups: Women who presented for abortion just over the facility's gestational limit, were denied an abortion and went on to parent the child (Parenting Turnaways, n = 146) or did not parent (Non-Parenting Turnaways, n = 64), those who presented just under the facility's gestational limit and received an abortion (Near-Limits, n = 413) and those who presented in the first trimester and received an abortion (First Trimesters, n = 254). Participants were interviewed by telephone one week, six months and one year after they sought an abortion. We used mixed effects logistic regression to assess the relationship between receiving versus being denied abortion and having an aspirational one year goal and achieving it. RESULTS: The 757 participants in this analysis reported a total of 1,304 one-year plans. The most common one-year plans were related to education (21.3 %), employment (18.9 %), other (16.3 %), and change in residence (10.4 %). Most goals (80 %) were aspirational, defined as a positive plan for the next year. First Trimesters and Near-Limits were over 6 times as likely as Parenting Turnaways to report aspirational one-year plans [Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) = 6.37 and 6.56 respectively, p < 0.001 for both]. Among all plans in which achievement was measurable (n = 1,024, 87 %), Near-Limits (45.6 %, AOR = 1.91, p = 0.003) and Non-Parenting Turnaways (47.9 %, AOR = 2.09, p = 0.026) were more likely to have both an aspirational plan and to have achieved it than Parenting Turnaways (30.4 %). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that ensuring women can have a wanted abortion enables them to maintain a positive future outlook and achieve their aspirational life plans.

Risk of violence from the man involved in the pregnancy after receiving or being denied an abortion.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence is common among women having abortions, with between 6% and 22% reporting recent violence from an intimate partner. Concern about violence is a reason some pregnant women decide to terminate their pregnancies. Whether risk of violence decreases after having an abortion, remains unknown. METHODS: Data are from the Turnaway Study, a prospective cohort study of women seeking abortions at 30 facilities across the U.S. Participants included women who: presented just prior to a facility's gestational age limit and received abortions (Near Limit Abortion Group, n = 452), presented just beyond the gestational limit and were denied abortions (Turnaways, n = 231), and received first trimester abortions (First Trimester Abortion Group, n = 273). Mixed effects logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between receiving versus being denied abortion and subsequent violence from the man involved in the pregnancy over 2.5 years. RESULTS: Physical violence decreased for Near Limits (adjusted odds ratios (aOR), 0.93 per month; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.90, 0.96), but not Turnaways who gave birth (P < .05 versus Near Limits). The decrease for First Trimesters was similar to Near Limits (P = .324). Psychological violence decreased for all groups (aOR, 0.97; CI 0.94, 1.00), with no differential change across groups. CONCLUSIONS: Policies restricting abortion provision may result in more women being unable to terminate unwanted pregnancies, potentially keeping them in contact with violent partners, and putting women and their children at risk.

Perceived stress and emotional social support among women who are denied or receive abortions in the United States: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Examining women's stress and social support following denial and receipt of abortion furthers understanding of the effects of unwanted childbearing and abortion on women's well-being. This study investigated perceived stress and emotional social support over time among women who were denied wanted abortions and who received abortions, and compared outcomes between the groups. METHODS: The Turnaway Study is a prospective cohort study of women who sought abortions at 30 abortion facilities across the United States, and follows women via semiannual phone interviews for five years. Participants include 956 English or Spanish speaking women aged 15 and over who sought abortions between 2008 and 2010 and whose gestation in pregnancy fit one of three groups: women who presented up to three weeks beyond a facility's gestational age limit and were denied an abortion; women presenting within two weeks below the limit who received an abortion; and women who received a first trimester abortion. The outcomes were modified versions of the Perceived Stress Scale and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Longitudinal mixed effects models were used to assess differences in outcomes between study groups over 30 months. RESULTS: Women denied abortions initially had higher perceived stress than women receiving abortions near gestational age limits (1.0 unit difference on 0-16 scale, P = 0.003). Women receiving first-trimester abortions initially had lower perceived stress than women receiving abortions near gestational age limits (0.6 difference, P = 0.045). By six months, all groups' levels of perceived stress were similar, and levels remained similar through 30 months. Emotional social support scores did not differ among women receiving abortions near gestational limits versus women denied abortions or women having first trimester abortions initially or over time. CONCLUSIONS: Soon after being denied abortions, women experienced higher perceived stress than women who received abortions. The study found no longer-term differences in perceived stress or emotional social support between women who received versus were denied abortions.

Self-Managed Abortion Attempts Before vs After Changes in Federal Abortion Protections in the US.

Importance: With decreasing access to facility-based abortion in the US, an increase in self-managed abortion (SMA) using various methods is anticipated. To date, no studies have examined changes in SMA in the shifting policy landscape. Objective: To estimate changes in SMA prevalence among the general US population from before to after the Supreme Court's June 2022 decision overturning federal abortion protections. Design, Setting, and Participants: Serial cross-sectional surveys were administered throughout the US from December 10, 2021, to January 11, 2022, and June 14 to July 7, 2023. Participants included online panel members assigned female sex at birth, ages 18 to 49 years (or ages 15-17 years if a household member), who were English- or Spanish-speaking. Exposure: Year of the survey (2021-2022 vs 2023). Main Outcome and Measures: Participants were asked whether they had "ever taken or done something on their own, without medical assistance, to try to end a pregnancy" and, if so, details of their experience. Changes in the weighted SMA prevalence between survey years were examined, factors associated with SMA experience were identified, and projected lifetime SMA prevalence was calculated using discrete-time event history models, accounting for abortion underreporting. Results: Median age of the participants was 32.5 (IQR, 25-41) years in 2021-2022 (n = 7016) and 32.0 (IQR, 24-40) in 2023 (n = 7148). Across both years, approximately 14% were non-Hispanic Black, 21% were Hispanic, and 54% were non-Hispanic White. The weighted adjusted proportion that ever attempted SMA was 2.4% (95% CI, 1.9%-3.0%) in 2021-2022 and 3.4% (95% CI, 2.8%-4.0%) in 2023-an increase of 1.0% (95% CI, 0.2%-1.7%; P = .03). Projected lifetime SMA prevalence accounting for abortion underreporting was 10.7% (95% CI, 8.6%-12.8%). In adjusted analyses, SMA experience was higher among non-Hispanic Black (4.3%; 95% CI, 2.8%-5.8%) vs other racial and ethnic (2.7%; 95% CI, 2.2%-3.1%) groups (P = .04) and sexual and gender minority (5.0%; 95% CI, 3.4%-6.6%) vs heterosexual or cisgender (2.5%; 95% CI, 2.0%-2.9%) participants (P < .001). Approximately 4 in 10 (45.3% in 2021 and 39.0% in 2023) SMA attempts occurred before age 20 years. The methods used included herbs (29.8% [2021-2022] vs 25.9% [2023]), physical methods (28.6% [2021-2022] vs 29.7% [2023]), or alcohol or other substances (17.9% [2021-2022] vs 18.6% [2023]). Few participants (7.1% [2021-2022] vs 4.7% [2023]) sought emergency care for a complication. Conclusions and Relevance: In this serial nationally representative survey study, increased SMA was observed following the loss of federal abortion protections. The findings revealed increased SMA use among marginalized groups, most often with ineffective methods. These findings suggest the need to expand access to alternative models of safe and effective abortion care and ensure those seeking health care post-SMA do not face legal risks.