Search

Objective: To estimate the proportion of obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns) who provided induced abortion in the prior year, disaggregated by surgical and medication methods, and document barriers to provision of medication abortion.Methods: In 2016-2017, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of a national sample of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Fellows and Junior Fellows who were part of the Collaborative Ambulatory Research Network. We sent the survey by email, and mailed nonresponders paper surveys. We performed descriptive statistics, χ tests, and logistic regression analyses.Results: Sixty-seven percent (655/980) of Collaborative Ambulatory Research Network members responded. Ninety-nine percent reported seeing patients of reproductive age, and 72% reported having a patient in the prior year who needed or wanted an abortion. Among those seeing patients of reproductive age, 23.8% (95% CI 20.5%-27.4%) reported performing an induced abortion in the prior year; 10.4% provided surgical and medication abortion, 9.4% surgical only, and 4.0% medication only. In multivariable analysis, physicians practicing in the Midwest (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.31, 95% CI 0.16-0.60) or South (AOR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11-0.42) had lower odds of provision compared with those practicing in the Northeast, whereas those practicing in an urban inner city (AOR 2.71, 95% CI 1.31-5.60) or urban non-inner-city area (AOR 2.89, 95% CI 1.48-5.64 vs midsize towns, rural areas, or military settings) had higher odds of provision. The most common reasons for not providing medication abortion were personal beliefs (34%) and practice restrictions (19%). Among those not providing medication abortion, 28% said they would if they could write a prescription for mifepristone.Conclusion: Compared with the previous national survey in 2008-2009, abortion provision may be increasing among practicing ob-gyns, although important geographic disparities persist. Few provide medication abortion, but uptake might increase if mifepristone could be prescribed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective was to investigate public funding policies for abortion in countries with liberal or liberally interpreted laws (defined as permitting abortion for economic or social reasons or upon request).Study Design: In May 2011-February 2012 and June 2013-December 2014, we researched online resources and conducted an email-based survey among reproductive health experts to determine countries' public funding policies for abortion. We categorized countries as follows: full funding for abortion (provided for free at government facilities, covered under state-funded health insurance); partial funding (partially covered by the government, covered for certain populations based on income or nonincome criteria, or less expensive in public facilities); funding for exceptional cases (rape/incest/fetal impairment, health/life of the woman or other limited cases) and no public funding.Results: We obtained data for all 80 countries meeting inclusion criteria. Among the world's female population aged 15-49 in countries with liberal/liberally interpreted abortion laws, 46% lived in countries with full funding for abortion (34 countries), 41% lived in countries with partial funding (25 countries), and 13% lived in countries with no funding or funding for exceptional cases only (21 countries). Thirty-one of 40 high-income countries provided full funding for abortion (n=20) or partial funding (n=11); 28 of 40 low- to middle-income countries provided full (n=14) or partial funding for abortion (n=14). Of those countries that did not provide public funding for abortion, most provided full coverage of maternity care.Conclusion: Nearly half of countries with liberal/liberally interpreted abortion laws had public funding for abortion, including most countries that liberalized their abortion law in the past 20 years. Outliers remain, however, including among developed countries where access to abortion may be limited due to affordability.Implications: Since cost of services affects access, country policies regarding public funding for services should be monitored, and advocacy should prioritize ensuring the affordability of care for low-income women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Despite evidence that the unintended pregnancy rate is higher among U.S. servicewomen than the general population and that servicewomen may face barriers to contraceptive use, there is little research about contraceptive access and use experiences of non-deployed active duty servicewomen. This qualitative study aimed to explore the experiences of accessing contraception while in the U.S. military among active duty servicewomen who had an abortion.Materials and Methods: From January 2015 to July 2016, we conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with 21 servicewomen who had obtained an abortion within the prior two years while active duty. The interviews included questions about participants' experiences accessing and using contraception while in the military. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed thematically using inductive and deductive coding. Ethical approval was obtained from the Allendale Investigational Review Board.Results: Over half of the respondents had ever obtained contraception from the military and had positive feelings about the military's contraceptive services; however, the vast majority of participants described barriers to contraceptive access in the military. Many identified barriers that were related to the military health care system, including inadequate counseling, challenges getting a preferred contraceptive method, and the structure and functioning of the military health system, or were a result of the demands of military service. In addition to these factors that were directly related to being in the military, respondents identified barriers not directly related to service, including contraceptive adherence, product concerns, and side effects; although not directly related to their service, in some cases, these barriers were exacerbated by their career.Conclusions: Active duty servicewomen who had an abortion experienced many barriers to accessing contraception while in the military. These findings highlight the need to improve contraceptive counseling and access in the U.S. military. Results support the need to implement mandatory yearly and pre-deployment contraceptive counseling as required by the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, offer contraceptive counseling in multiple settings, ensure military providers receive training to avoid contraceptive coercion, expand military clinic and pharmacy hours, increase the number of female military health care providers and providers able to administer all forms of contraception, and expand the contraceptive methods included under the Basic Core Formulary. Limitations to this study include that participants were self-selected and were asked to recall experiences up to several years in the past. Future studies should evaluate representative samples to understand the proportion of servicewomen with unmet contraceptive need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]