Search

Objective: To describe utilization of health services for, and case fatality from, abortion in Mexico.Method: A historical cohort study using a census of state-level aggregate hospital discharge and primary care clinic data across Mexico's 32 states from January 2000 to December 2016. Abortive events and changes over time in utilization per 1000 women aged 15-44 years, and case fatality per 100 000 abortion-related events were described by year, health sector, and state. Associations of location (Mexico City vs 31 other states) and time (Mexico City implemented legal abortion services in 2007) with outcomes were tested by linear regression, controlling for secular trends.Results: The national abortion utilization rate was 6.7 per 1000 women in 2000, peaked at 7.9 in 2011, and plateaued to 7.0 in 2016. In Mexico City, utilization peaked at 16.7 in 2014 and then plateaued. Nationwide, the case-fatality rate declined over time from 53.7 deaths per 100 000 events in 2000 to 33.0 in 2016. Case fatality declined more rapidly in Mexico City than in the other 31 states to 12.3 in 2015.Conclusion: Case fatality from abortive events has decreased across Mexico. Where abortion became legal, utilization increased sharply but plateaued afterward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors offer a response to a commentary made on their article on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and menstrual cycle disturbances. Topics include the steps they have taken to reduce confounding and increase confidence in their results, which found small menstrual cycle changes that resolved quickly with COVID-19 vaccination; basis of the concept of length-biased sampling; and factors needed in the investigation of cycle-length changes following vaccination.

Misinformation contributes to the perception that abortion has substantial health risks, despite the known safety of medication and aspiration abortion. We lack detailed information about which health risks the public believes are most likely. This study aimed to describe public perception of short- and long-term risks of abortion. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of US residents aged ≥18 years using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). We collected information regarding participant demographics, reproductive history, political views, and position on abortion restrictions. We provided participants with a list of 9 short-term and 15 long-term possible complications and asked them to indicate whether they occurred never (0%), very rarely (<1%), rarely (1%–5%), occasionally (5%–20%), or frequently (>20%) following abortion. We used descriptive statistics to understand our population demographics and to capture the perceived incidence of all complications. We created a binary indicator of answering all risk estimates incorrectly vs at least 1 estimate correctly, separately for all long-term possible complications, and the 2 short-term risks of infection and bleeding. We determined the proportion of individuals who responded incorrectly to all questions in each category and used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with incorrect perceptions about the risks of abortion. For all listed complications, participant (N=1057) estimates of risk were higher than the known incidence. For both short-term risks of bleeding and infection, over 40% of participants reported that these outcomes occur occasionally or frequently. Similarly, for both long-term risks of depression and anxiety, over 60% of respondents reported that these outcomes occur occasionally or frequently after abortion. Participants reported that possible complications known to not be associated with abortion, including hair loss, future pregnancy complications, breast cancer, and cosmetic disfigurement, occurred at least rarely. Nearly one-quarter of participants responded that death occurs occasionally or frequently (in over 5% of abortions), and 79% of participants responded that breast cancer can result from abortion. One-quarter (24.9%) of participants incorrectly overestimated both short-term outcomes of infection and bleeding, whereas 19.5% answered all long-term complication questions incorrectly, including outcomes that never occur. On multivariable analyses, we identified that the participants most likely to incorrectly identify risks of abortion identified as Asian or Black race/ethnicity, were from rural communities, or believed that abortion should have more legal restrictions. The public perceives abortion to be much riskier than it actually is. This information can be used to develop targeted clinical and public health efforts to disseminate the true risks of abortion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: A recent publication [Koch E, Chireau M, Pliego F, Stanford J, Haddad S, Calhoun B, Aracena P, Bravo M, Gatica S, Thorp J. Abortion legislation, maternal healthcare, fertility, female literacy, sanitation, violence against women and maternal deaths: a natural experiment in 32 Mexican states. BMJ Open 2015;5(2):e006013] claimed that Mexican states with more restrictive abortion laws had lower levels of maternal mortality. Our objectives are to replicate the analysis, reanalyze the data and offer a critique of the key flaws of the Koch study.Study Design: We used corrected maternal mortality data (2006-2013), live births, and state-level indicators of poverty. We replicate the published analysis. We then reclassified state-level exposure to abortion on demand based on actual availability of abortion (Mexico City versus the other 31 states) and test the association of abortion access and the maternal mortality ratio (MMR) using descriptives over time, pooled chi-square tests and regression models. We included 256 state-year observations.Results: We did not find significant differences in MMR between Mexico City (MMR=49.1) and the 31 states (MMR=44.6; p=.44). Using Koch's classification of states, we replicated published differences of higher MMR where abortion is more available. We found a significant, negative association between MMR and availability of abortion in the same multivariable models as Koch, but using our state classification (beta=-22.49, 95% CI=-38.9; -5.99). State-level poverty remains highly correlated with MMR.Conclusion: Koch makes errors in methodology and interpretation, making false causal claims about abortion law and MMR. MMR is falling most rapidly in Mexico City, but our main study limitation is an inability to draw causal inference about abortion law or access and maternal mortality. We need rigorous evidence about the health impacts of increasing access to safe abortion worldwide.Implications: Transparency and integrity in research is crucial, as well as perhaps even more in politically contested topics such as abortion. Rigorous evidence about the health impacts of increasing access to safe abortion worldwide is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of technology-based decision aids on contraceptive use, continuation, and patient-reported and decision-making outcomes.Data Sources: A systematic search was conducted in OVID MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and SocINDEX databases from January 2005 to April 2022. Eligible references from a concurrent systematic review evaluating contraceptive care were also included for review.Study Eligibility Criteria: Studies were included if a contraceptive decision aid was technology-based (ie, mobile/tablet application, web, or computer-based) and assessed contraceptive use and/or continuation or patient-reported outcomes (knowledge, self-efficacy, feasibility/acceptability/usability, decisional conflict). The protocol was registered under the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021240755).Methods: Three reviewers independently performed data abstraction and quality appraisal. Dichotomous outcomes (use and continuation) were evaluated with an odds ratio, whereas continuous outcomes (knowledge and self-efficacy) were evaluated with the mean difference. Subgroup analyses were performed for the mode of delivery (mobile and tablet applications vs web and computer-based) and follow-up time (immediate vs >1 month).Results: This review included 18 studies evaluating 21 decision aids. Overall, there were higher odds of contraceptive use and/or continuation among decision aid users compared with controls (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, [1.05-1.55]). Use of computer and web-based decision aids was associated with higher odds of contraceptive use and/or continuation (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, [1.08-1.72]) than mobile and tablet decision aids (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, [0.83-1.94]). Decision aid users also had statistically significant higher self-efficacy scores (mean difference, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, [0.05-0.13]), and knowledge scores (mean difference, 0.04; 95% confidence interval, [0.01-0.07]), with immediate measurement of knowledge having higher retention than measurement after 1 month. Other outcomes were evaluated descriptively (eg, feasibility, applicability, decisional conflict) but had little evidence to support a definite conclusion. Overall, the review provided moderate-level evidence for contraceptive use and continuation, knowledge, and self-efficacy.Conclusion: The use of technology-based contraceptive decision aids to support contraceptive decision-making has positive effects on contraceptive use and continuation, knowledge, and self-efficacy. There was insufficient evidence to support a conclusion about effects on other decision-making outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]