Search

© 2015 Upadhyay et al.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 prospecti

Objective: Although numerous studies have identified an elevated risk of diabetes or impaired fasting glucose among Asians, there are limited data examining variability in risk among Asian subpopulations. We estimated prevalence of diabetes (DM), metabolic syndrome (MS) and impaired fasting glucose (IFG), by race/ethnicity and by Asian subgroup.Design, Settings and Participants: This study was conducted using the fasting subsample of the 2004 New York City Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NYC HANES; n = 1,324), a local version of the NHANES. Using country of origin information, we constructed South Asian and other Asian categories.Main Outcome Measures: DM, MS and IFG.Results: Age-standardized prevalence estimates of DM, MS and IFG were 10.8%, 13.3% and 21.4% among Whites, 16.1%, 12.0% and 32.4% among all Asians, and 35.4%, 17.7% and 15.9% among foreign-born South Asians, respectively. After adjusting for potential confounders, Asians had significantly higher odds of prevalent IFG (Adjusted odds ratio [AOR]:2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.60-4.38) and MS (AOR:2.09; 95%CI: 1.19-3.68), compared to Whites. South Asians were more likely to have DM (AOR:4.88; 95%CI: 1.52-15.66) and MS (AOR:5.59; 95%CI: 1.69-18.50) compared to Whites, while other Asians were at increased prevalence of IFG (AOR:2.89; 95%CI: 1.65-5.07).Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the observed White/Asian disparity in DM risk may be primarily attributable to elevated risk among South Asians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: To explore the effect of perceptions of friends' romantic and physical behaviors on adolescent sexual behavior and the relative influence of friends' sexual behaviors and maternal attitudes on age at first sex. METHODS: Using longitudinal data collected from 1943 adolescents who have never had sex at baseline in Cebu, Philippines, logistic regression assessed whether adolescents' perceptions of friends' sexual behaviors, measured at ages 14 to 16 years, were associated with age at first intercourse. Survival analysis assessed the hazard of having first intercourse by ages 17 to 19 years. Final models adjusted for sociodemographics, mothers'/caretakers' disapproval of premarital sex, living with a caretaker, and the adolescents' own behaviors at baseline. RESULTS: Boys and girls, who at ages 14 to 16 years, perceived that their friends had ever had boyfriends/girlfriends, dated, held hands, kissed, petted or had sex were significantly more likely to have experienced that behavior by ages 17 to 19 years. For each additional behavior an adolescent perceived his or her friends to have experienced, the hazard of having sex at a younger age increased by 1.15 (p = .02) among boys and 1.19 (p < .002) among girls, after adjusting for mothers'/caretakers' disapproval of premarital sex and other factors. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the important role of peers in light of competing influences in adolescents' lives. They provide support for asking at early ages what romantic and physical behaviors adolescents think their friends have experienced. Interventions can use such information to better prepare adolescents to make responsible and informed decisions about sexuality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine changes in availability of procedural abortion, especially in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, since the U.S. Supreme Court ended federal protections for abortion in its Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in 2022., Methods: We used the Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health Abortion Facility Database, a national database of all publicly advertising abortion facilities, to document trends in service availability from 2021 to 2023. We calculated summary statistics to describe facility gestational limits for procedural abortion for the United States and by state, subregion, and region, and we examined the number and proportion of facilities that offer procedural abortion in the second or third trimester of pregnancy., Results: From 2021 to 2023, the total number of publicly advertising facilities providing procedural abortion decreased 11.0%, from 473 to 421. Overall, one-quarter of facilities (n=115) that had been providing procedural abortion in 2021 ceased providing services, and an additional 99 decreased their gestational limits. In contrast, 73 facilities increased their gestational limits, and 64 new facilities began providing or publicly advertising procedural abortion services. The number of facilities offering procedural abortion later in pregnancy decreased (327 to 309 providing 14 weeks of gestation or later, 60 to 50 providing 24 weeks of gestation or later), although the proportion of all facilities providing these services held steady. The greatest changes were in the South, where many facilities closed., Conclusion: There have been substantial reductions in the number and distribution of facilities offering procedural abortion since the Dobbs decision, with critical decreases in the availability of later abortion services. Some facilities are positioning themselves to meet the needs of patients by opening new facilities, publicly advertising their services, or extending their gestational limits., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objective: Medication abortions now make up the majority of abortions in the US, with new service delivery models such as telehealth; however, it is unclear how this may impact patient experiences. The objective of the study is to adapt and validate a person-centered abortion care (PCAC) scale for medication abortions that was developed in a global South context (Kenya) for use in the United States., Study Design: This study includes medication abortion patients from a hospital-based clinic who had one of two modes of service delivery: (1) telemedicine with no physical exam or ultrasound; or (2) in-person with clinic-based exams and ultrasounds. We conducted a sequential approach to scale development including: (1) defining constructs and item generation; (2) expert reviews; (3) cognitive interviews (n = 12); (4) survey development and online survey data collection (N = 182, including 45 telemedicine patients and 137 in-person patients); and (5) psychometric analyses., Results: Exploratory factor analyses identified 29-items for the US-PCAC scale with three subscales: (1) Respect and Dignity (10 items), (2) Responsive and Supportive Care (nine items for the full scale, one additional mode-specific item each for in-person and telemedicine), and (3) Communication and Autonomy (10 items for the full scale, one additional item for telemedicine). The US-PCAC had high content, construct, and criterion validity. It also had high reliability, with a standardized alpha for the full 29-item US-PCAC scale of 0.95. The US-PCAC score was associated with overall satisfaction., Conclusion: This study found high validity and reliability of a newly-developed person-centered abortion care scale for use in the US. As medication abortion provision expands, this scale can be used in quality improvement efforts., Implications: This study found high validity and reliability of a newly-developed person-centered care scale for use in the United States for in-person and telemedicine medication abortion., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Telehealth abortion has taken on a vital role in maintaining abortion access since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision. However, little remains known about the landscape of new telehealth-only virtual clinic abortion providers that have expanded since telehealth abortion first became widely available in the United States in 2021., Objective: This study aimed to (1) document the landscape of telehealth-only virtual clinic abortion care in the United States, (2) describe changes in the presence of virtual clinic abortion services between September 2022, following the Dobbs decision, and June 2023, and (3) identify structural factors that may perpetuate inequities in access to virtual clinic abortion care., Methods: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional study by reviewing web search results and abortion directories to identify virtual abortion clinics in September 2022 and June 2023 and described changes in the presence of virtual clinics between these 2 periods. In June 2023, we also described each virtual clinic's policies, including states served, costs, patient age limits, insurance acceptance, financial assistance available, and gestational limits., Results: We documented 11 virtual clinics providing telehealth abortion care in 26 states and Washington DC in September 2022. By June 2023, 20 virtual clinics were providing services in 27 states and Washington DC. Most (n=16) offered care to minors, 8 provided care until 10 weeks of pregnancy, and median costs were US $259. In addition, 2 accepted private insurance and 1 accepted Medicaid, within a limited number of states. Most (n=16) had some form of financial assistance available., Conclusions: Virtual clinic abortion providers have proliferated since the Dobbs decision. We documented inequities in the availability of telehealth abortion care from virtual clinics, including age restrictions that exclude minors, gestational limits for care, and limited insurance and Medicaid acceptance. Notably, virtual clinic abortion care was not permitted in 11 states where in-person abortion is available., (©Leah R Koenig, Jennifer Ko, Ushma D Upadhyay. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 05.08.2024.)

Introduction: Financial costs remain one of the greatest barriers to abortion, leading to delays in care and preventing some from getting a desired abortion. Medication abortion is available through in-person facilities and telehealth services. However, whether telehealth offers a more affordable option has not been well-documented., Methods: We used Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH)'s Abortion Facility Database, which includes data on all publicly advertising abortion facilities and is updated annually. We describe facility out-of-pocket prices for medication abortion in 2021, 2022, and 2023, comparing in-person and telehealth provided by brick-and-mortar and virtual clinics, and by whether states allowed Medicaid coverage for abortion., Results: The national median price for medication abortion remained consistent at $568 in 2021 and $563 in 2023. However, medications provided by virtual clinics were notably lower in price than in-person care and this difference widened over time. The median cost of a medication abortion offered in-person increased from $580 in 2021 to $600 by 2023, while the median price of a medication abortion offered by virtual clinics decreased from $239 in 2021 to $150 in 2023. Among virtual clinics, few (7%) accepted Medicaid. Median prices in states that accept Medicaid were generally higher than in states that did not., Discussion: Medication abortion is offered at substantially lower prices by virtual clinics. However, not being able to use Medicaid or other insurance may make telehealth cost-prohibitive for some people, even if prices are lower. Additionally, many states do not allow telehealth for abortion, deepening inequities in healthcare., (© 2024 The Author(s). Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of University of Ottawa.)

Objectives: In November 2022, the anti-abortion advocacy group Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration challenging the initial 2000 approval of mifepristone and its subsequent approvals, which removed unnecessary restrictions on its use, by disputing the medication's safety record. Such challenges relied on a study examining the incidence of emergency room visits following medication abortion with mifepristone and procedural abortion using Medicaid claims data from 1999-2015. In February 2024 that study was retracted by its publisher. In this paper, we analyzed the methods and presentations of the data used in the study., Study Design: We drew upon commonly accepted principles in responsible epidemiologic and scientific research to evaluate the methods and presentations of the data and organized our findings into themes., Results: We found multiple instances of methodological flaws, mischaracterizations, and obfuscations of data in this study, including use of a misleading research question and framing, analytic flaws, inappropriate use of an unvalidated proxy measure for outcomes of interest, and inappropriate and deceptive visualizations of data. In each instance, the resulting effect obfuscated and misrepresented the safety of medication abortion with mifepristone., Conclusions: The misrepresentation and exaggeration of data promoted and exacerbated misinterpretations about the study's findings, resulting in substantial harm before it was retracted. Recognizing that ongoing judicial proceedings threaten access to conventional reproductive health care in the United States, public health policies must be informed by scientific and medical literature that is comprehensive, methodologically sound, and absent any obfuscations or misrepresentations., Implications: Studnicki et al.'s study of emergency room visits after abortion misrepresented the safety of mifepristone with multiple instances of methodological flaws and obfuscations of data. While the study has now been retracted, it led to irrevocable harm, threatening access to medication abortion, which has an established safety record., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

With the Dobbs leak introducing uncertainty about access and the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in June of 2022 overturning the US constitutional right to abortion, delays in accessing desired abortion care are likely growing longer and more common. Timely research on people's experiences waiting to access abortion care is needed. Using data from an abortion subreddit (r/abortion), we analyzed posts that described waiting after having decided to terminate the pregnancy, either by having an in-clinic appointment or ordering medication(s) online for self-managed abortion. Our analysis explored described 1) wait time length, 2) factors contributing to waiting, and 3) impacts of waiting. We used a hybrid inductive and deductive thematic qualitative coding approach to analyze a month-stratified 10% random sample of posts to the r/abortion community in 2022 surrounding the Dobbs leak and decision (May-December, n = 523 posts). Among posts to r/abortion that described waiting to start an abortion (n = 80), wait times ranged from one day to more than a month. Lack of appointment availability and waiting for mailed medications were commonly described as causing delays in accessing in-clinic abortion care and self-managed abortion, respectively. People shared challenges with pregnancy symptoms and feelings of anxiety, fear, isolation, and uncertainty. Posters also commonly described needing additional support while waiting. Overall, waiting to start an abortion was extremely stressful and isolating., with people often waiting weeks between ordering medication or scheduling an appointment and initiating the abortion process. Experiences of waiting to start an abortion and their impacts are of increasing concern as abortion access is further restricted. Additional targeted information and support are needed to mitigate these challenges. Providing timely access is imperative to quality care and overall abortion experiences., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Telehealth abortion has become critical to addressing surges in demand in states where abortion remains legal but evidence on its effectiveness and safety is limited. California Home Abortion by Telehealth (CHAT) is a prospective study that follows pregnant people who obtained medication abortion via telehealth from three virtual clinics operating in 20 states and Washington, DC between April 2021 and January 2022. Individuals were screened using a standardized no-test protocol, primarily relying on their medical history to assess medical eligibility. We assessed effectiveness, defined as complete abortion after 200 mg mifepristone and 1,600 μg misoprostol (or lower) without additional intervention; safety was measured by the absence of serious adverse events. We estimated rates using multivariable logistic regression and multiple imputation to account for missing data. Among 6,034 abortions, 97.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 97.2-98.1%) were complete without subsequent known intervention or ongoing pregnancy after the initial treatment. Overall, 99.8% (99.6-99.9%) of abortions were not followed by serious adverse events. In total, 0.25% of patients experienced a serious abortion-related adverse event, 0.16% were treated for an ectopic pregnancy and 1.3% abortions were followed by emergency department visits. There were no differences in effectiveness or safety between synchronous and asynchronous models of care. Telehealth medication abortion is effective, safe and comparable to published rates of in-person medication abortion care., (© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Objectives: State-level abortion bans in the United States have created a complex legal landscape that forces many prospective patients to travel long distances to access abortion care. The financial strain and logistical difficulties associated with travelling out of state for abortion care may present an insurmountable barrier to some individuals, especially to those with limited resources. Tracking the impact of these abortion bans on travel and housing is crucial for understanding abortion access and economic changes following the Dobbs U.S. Supreme Court decision., Study Design: This study used occupancy data from an average of 2,349,635 (standard deviation = 111,578) U.S. Airbnb listings each month from October 1st, 2020, through April 30th, 2023, to measure the impact of abortion bans on travel for abortion care and the resulting economic effects on regional economies., Methods: The study used a synthetic difference-in-differences design to compare monthly-level occupancy rate data from 1-bedroom entire-place Airbnb rentals within a 30-min driving distance of abortion clinics in states with and without abortion bans., Results: The study found a 1.4 percentage point decrease in occupancy rates of Airbnbs around abortion clinics in states where abortion bans were in effect, demonstrating reductions in Airbnb use in states with bans. In the 6-month period post Dobbs, this decrease translates to 16,548 fewer renters and a $1.87 million loss in revenue for 1-bedroom entire-place Airbnbs within a 30-min catchment area of abortion facilities in states with abortion restrictions., Conclusion: This novel use of Airbnb data provides a unique perspective on measuring demand for abortion and healthcare services and demonstrates the value of this data stream as a tool for understanding economic impacts of health policies., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have the following interests to declare: MAB, BM, and JRS have been paid as expert scientists in the area of abortion and mental health in legal cases challenging abortion policies. NLS received reimbursement for travel expenses related to pro bono expert testimony. MAB, RWB, DGF, CBP, CHR, JRS, JVD, and UDU were awarded grants to conduct research or reviews on the relationship between abortion and mental health. LBH is a named plaintiff in a case regarding abortion rights (SisterSong v State of Georgia). NLS served on the board of directors of Physicians for Reproductive Health. TMO received a speaker fee from Lundbeck Pharma A/S for a talk on prediction of postpartum depression. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of their employers or other organisations. Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Objectives. Despite the recent expansion of direct-to-patient telehealth abortion care in the United States, patient experiences with the service are not well understood. Methods. We described care experiences of 1600 telehealth abortion patients in 2021 to 2022 and used logistic regression to explore differences by race or ethnicity and between synchronous (phone or video) and asynchronous (secure messaging) telehealth abortion care. Results. Most patients trusted the provider (98%), felt telehealth was the right decision (96%), felt cared for (92%), and were very satisfied (89%). Patients most commonly cited privacy (76%), timeliness (74%), and staying at home (71%) as benefits. The most commonly reported drawback was initial uncertainty about whether the service was legitimate (38%). Asian patients were less likely to be very satisfied than White patients (79% vs 90%; P  = .008). Acceptability was high for both synchronous and asynchronous care. Conclusions. Telehealth abortion care is highly acceptable, and benefits include privacy and expediency. Public Health Implications. Telehealth abortion can expand abortion access in an increasingly restricted landscape while maintaining patient-centered care. ( Am J Public Health. 2024;114(2):241-250. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307437).

Objective: To estimate demand for medication abortion (MAB) among North Carolina (NC) college students and describe access to nearest clinics offering MAB to each campus., Methods: We calculated demand using 2019-2020 campus demographics and NC abortion statistics. We used a mystery client technique to gather MAB cost and appointment wait times at the closest clinics and calculated travel distances and times., Results: We estimated that 2,517 NC students seek MAB annually. Twenty-one clinics were closest to NC's 111 colleges and universities, including five in neighboring states. Mean cost was $450, with an average wait time of six days to appointment. The average round-trip travel distance was 58 miles and time to the nearest clinic was 84 min by car., Conclusions: Many NC college students likely obtain MAB every year and face high costs, long wait times and distances to care, which has likely worsened after the overturning of Roe v. Wade .

Introduction: The general public and abortion patients in the United States have misinformation about the risks of infertility associated with abortion, which may influence abortion care-seeking., Methods: The Google Ads Abortion Access Study was a national study of people considering abortion and searching online for information. Participants completed baseline and follow-up surveys, providing free text responses to questions about barriers and facilitators to abortion. We conducted an exploratory analysis of the free text responses related to fertility and used thematic analysis to identify concerns raised about links between abortion and future fertility., Results: Of 864 participants who provided free text responses in the follow-up survey, 32 specifically mentioned fertility. Few expressed fear that complications from the abortion procedure would somehow lead to infertility; rather, most discussed complex and overlapping thoughts about how abortion factored into their reproductive life plans. These included age-related concerns, missing out on their "chance" to have a child, fear of being punished by God with infertility for having an abortion, and conflicting emotions if they had previously been told they were subfecund or infertile., Conclusion: Although previous research has focused on misinformation about the link between abortion and infertility, participants in this study rarely mentioned it as a concern. Researchers and practitioners should be attuned to the distinctions people make between infertility occurring as a result of abortion and other fears they might have about not achieving their future reproductive aspirations, ask questions, and provide counseling accordingly., (Copyright © 2023 Jacobs Institute of Women's Health, George Washington University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Even preceding the Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, patients in the United States faced exceptional barriers to reach abortion providers. Abortion restrictions disproportionately limited abortion access among people of color, young people, and those living on low incomes. Presently, clinics in states where abortion remains legal are experiencing an influx of out-of-state patients and wait times for in-person appointments are increasing. Direct-to-patient telehealth for abortion care has expanded since its introduction in the United States in 2020. However, the role of this telehealth model in addressing geographic barriers to and inequities in abortion access remains unclear., Objective: We sought to examine the amount of travel that patients averted by using telehealth for abortion care, and the role of telehealth in mitigating inequities in abortion access by race or ethnicity, age, pregnancy duration, socioeconomic status, rural residence, and distance to a facility., Methods: We used geospatial analyses and data from patients in the California Home Abortion by Telehealth Study, residing in 31 states and Washington DC, who obtained telehealth abortion care at 1 of 3 virtual abortion clinics. We used patients' residential ZIP code data and data from US abortion facility locations to document the round-trip driving distance in miles, driving time, and public transit time to the nearest abortion facility that patients averted by using telehealth abortion services from April 2021 to January 2022, before the Dobbs decision. We used binomial regression to assess whether patients reported that telehealth was more likely to make it possible to access a timely abortion among patients of color, those experiencing food insecurity, younger patients, those with longer pregnancy durations, rural patients, and those residing further from their closest abortion facility., Results: The 6027 patients averted a median of 10 (IQR 5-26) miles and 25 (IQR 14-46) minutes of round-trip driving, and 1 hour 25 minutes (IQR 46 minutes to 2 hours 30 minutes) of round-trip public transit time. Among a subsample of 1586 patients surveyed, 43% (n=683) reported that telehealth made it possible to obtain timely abortion care. Telehealth was most likely to make it possible to have a timely abortion for younger patients (prevalence ratio [PR] 1.4, 95% CI 1.2-1.6) for patients younger than 25 years of age compared to those 35 years of age or older), rural patients (PR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2-1.6), those experiencing food insecurity (PR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.4), and those who averted over 100 miles of driving to their closest abortion facility (PR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3-1.9)., Conclusions: These findings support the role of telehealth in reducing abortion-related travel barriers in states where abortion remains legal, especially among patient populations who already face structural barriers to abortion care. Restrictions on telehealth abortion threaten health equity., (©Leah R Koenig, Andréa Becker, Jennifer Ko, Ushma D Upadhyay. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 07.11.2023.)

Measuring empowerment is critical to understanding the level of control adolescents and young adults (AYA) have over their sexual and reproductive health (SRH) behaviors, and could provide a key window into addressing their unique SRH needs. We adapted the Sexual and Reproductive Empowerment (SRE) scale for AYA for use in an East African context. This multi-method qualitative study sampled 15-23 year-old female adolescents and young adults in Kisumu, Kenya. We conducted in-depth interviews (n = 30) and analyzed transcripts with an inductive, constant comparison approach. Empowerment domains were integrated with Kabeer's (1999) framework in a conceptual model, which we referenced to revise the original and develop new scale items. Items underwent expert review, and were condensed and translated through team-based consensus-building. We evaluated content validity in cognitive interviews (n = 25), during which item phrasing and word choice were revised to generate an adapted SRE scale. Participants (n = 55) had a median age of 18 (range 16-23), and 75% were under 19 years. We categorize three types of adaptations to the SRE scale: new item generation, item revision, and translation/linguistic considerations. We developed nine new items reflecting AYA's experiences and new domains of empowerment that emerged from the data; new domains relate to self-efficacy in accessing sexual and reproductive health care, and how material needs are met. All items were revised and translated to echo concepts and language relevant to participants, navigating the multilingualism common in many African countries. Centering the voices of female Kenyan AYA, this study provides insight into measuring the latent construct of adolescent sexual and reproductive empowerment in an East African setting, and supports the adapted SRE scale's content validity for Kenya. We detail our multi-method, theory-driven approach, contributing to limited methods guidance for measure adaptation across contexts and among diverse adolescent populations., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Harrington et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Objectives: Assess public awareness of medication abortion in the U.S., Study Design: We conducted a cross-sectional survey in 2021-2022 with a probability-based sample, calculating the prevalence of medication abortion awareness and assessing its associations with participant characteristics using multivariable logistic regression., Results: A total of 45% of adults (7201/16,113) and 49% of eligible 15-17-year-old females (175/358) invited completed the survey. In all, 64% of 6992 participants assigned female at birth, and 57% of 360 participants assigned male reported awareness of medication abortion. Race, age, education, poverty level, religion, sexual identity, abortion history, and attitudes toward abortion legality were associated with differences in awareness., Conclusions: Medication abortion awareness differs by participant groups and is critical for expanding abortion access., Implications: Tailored health information for groups with less awareness of medication abortion may help spread knowledge of the method and how to access it., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mindful of social norms shaping health among women pressured to prove early fertility in Nepal, a bi-national research team developed and piloted a 4-month intervention engaging household triads (newly married women, their husbands, and mothers-in-law) toward advancing gender equity, personal agency, and reproductive health. This study evaluates the impact on family planning and fertility decision-making., Methods: In 2021, Sumadhur was piloted in six villages with 30 household triads (90 participants). Pre/post surveys of all participants were analyzed using paired sample nonparametric tests and in-depth interviews with a subset of 45 participants were transcribed and analyzed thematically., Results: Sumadhur significantly impacted (p < .05) norms related to pregnancy spacing and timing, and sex preference of children, as well as knowledge about family planning benefits, pregnancy prevention methods, and abortion legality. Family planning intent also increased among newly married women. Qualitative findings revealed improved family dynamics and gender equity, and shed light on remaining challenges., Conclusions: Entrenched social norms surrounding fertility and family planning contrasted with participants' personal beliefs, highlighting needed community-level shifts to improve reproductive health in Nepal. Engagement of influential community- and family-members is key to improving norms and reproductive health. Additionally, promising interventions such as Sumadhur should be scaled up and reassessed., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: Given the substantial barriers to abortion access in the United States, many clinics now mail patients abortion medications. We examined whether dispensing the medications by mail prolonged time to medication use., Study Design: We analyzed data from no-test medication abortions with medication provided either by mail or in a clinic from 11 United States clinics from February 2020 to January 2021. We examined mean number of days from patients' first contact with the clinic to mifepristone ingestion, its two-component intervals (first contact to medication dispensing and dispensing to mifepristone ingestion), and pregnancy duration at mifepristone ingestion. We used Poisson regression to compare mean outcomes across three dispensing methods: in-person, mailed from the clinic, and mailed from a mail-order pharmacy., Results: Among the 2600 records, patients took mifepristone on average at 49 days of gestation (95% CI, 47-51) and 7 days (95% CI, 4-10) after first contact. Mean time from first contact to mifepristone ingestion was 6 days when medications were dispensed in-person and 9 days when mailed (p = 0.38). While time from first contact to dispensing was similar across methods (6 days in-person, 5 days mailed, p = 0.77), more time elapsed from dispensing to mifepristone ingestion when medications were mailed (4 days from clinic, 5 days from mail-order pharmacy) versus dispensed in-person (0.3 days, p < 0.001). Time to mifepristone ingestion was shorter with higher pregnancy duration. Pregnancy duration at ingestion was similar across methods (48 days in-person, 50 days mailed)., Conclusions: Mailing medications did not significantly prolong time from patients' first contact with the clinic to mifepristone ingestion or increase pregnancy duration at mifepristone ingestion., Implications: Abortion providers should offer a range of medication abortion dispensing options, prioritizing patient preference., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To explore concerns about procedural abortion and abortion-related pain in a cohort searching for abortion online., Methods: The Google Ads Abortion Access Study was a national longitudinal cohort study that recruited people searching for abortion online. Participants completed a baseline demographic survey and a follow-up survey four weeks later evaluating barriers and facilitators to abortion. This qualitative study utilized thematic analysis to produce a descriptive narrative based on overarching themes about procedural abortion and abortion-related pain., Results: There were 57 separate mentions from 45 participants regarding procedural abortion or abortion-related pain. We identified two main themes: 1) concerns about the procedure (with subthemes, fear of procedural abortion, comparison to medication abortion, lack of sedation) and 2) abortion-related pain (with subthemes fear of abortion-related pain, experiences of pain, fear of complications and cost-barriers to pain control)., Conclusions: This study highlights the need for improved anticipatory guidance and accessible resources to assuage potential fears and misconceptions regarding abortion., Practice Impliactions: Abortion resources, particularly online, should provide accurate and unbiased information about abortion methods and pain to help patients feel more prepared. Providers should be aware of potential concerns surrounding procedural abortion and pain when counseling patients presenting for care., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: When an individual seeking an abortion cannot obtain one, carrying that pregnancy to term may affect both her relationship with the man involved in the pregnancy and her prospects for new intimate relationships. We aimed to assess the impact of receiving versus being denied a wanted abortion on women's intimate relationships, up to 5 years after seeking an abortion in the United States., Methods: Using mixed-effects regression models, we compared relationship outcomes among women who presented for abortion care just under facilities' gestational age limits ("Near-limit abortion patients," n = 452) with those who presented just over, were denied an abortion ("Turnaways," n = 146) at 30 US facilities., Results: At 1 week post-abortion seeking, the predicted probability of being in a relationship with the man involved in the pregnancy was 58%, gradually declining to 27% at 5 years with no significant differences between those who received and those who were denied an abortion. However, from 2 to 5 years post-abortion seeking, participants who were denied an abortion had double the odds (aOR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.09-3.69) of being in a poor intimate relationship, with a predicted probability of being in a poor relationship of 14% among those denied an abortion compared with 9% among those who received one (p < 0.05)., Conclusions: Carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term does not increase the chance of being in an intimate relationship with the man involved in the pregnancy but may have negative implications for the quality of future relationships up to 5 years post-abortion seeking., (© 2022 University of Ottawa.)

Purpose: Quantify the misclassification of abortion accessibility resulting from calculations based on block groups, census tracts, ZCTAs, or counties versus census blocks., Methods: We included 850 facilities from the 2018 ANSIRH Facility Database and Planned Parenthood website. Accessibility was the proportions of 18-44 year-old women living within a 30-, 60-, and 90-minute drive from an abortion-providing facility. We calculated accessibility using five different geographic units: census blocks, block groups, census tracts, ZCTAs, and counties. We estimated the potential magnitude of abortion accessibility misclassification resulting by calculating the difference between accessibility calculated using each geographic unit, respectively, for each drive time as compared to census blocks., Results: In this analysis, counties, the largest geographic unit considered, underestimated national abortion accessibility compared with census blocks by up to 24.21 percentage points; while block group-, census tract, or ZCTA-based national estimates of abortion accessibility in the US resulted in small underestimates relative to estimates constructed using census blocks., Conclusions: Studies of population accessibility should use the smallest feasible geographic unit of analysis. While this study focused on abortion accessibility, our findings likely apply to other health services, particularly those with distributions like abortion care., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Abortion facility closures resulted in a substantial decrease in access to abortion care in the US., Objectives: To investigate the changes in travel time to the nearest abortion facility after the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (referred to hereafter as Dobbs) US Supreme Court decision., Design, Setting, and Participants: Repeated cross-sectional spatial analysis of travel time from each census tract in the contiguous US (n = 82 993) to the nearest abortion facility (n = 1134) listed in the Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health database. Census tract boundaries and demographics were defined by the 2020 American Community Survey. The spatial analysis compared access during the pre-Dobbs period (January-December 2021) with the post-Dobbs period (September 2022) for the estimated 63 718 431 females aged 15 to 44 years (reproductive age for this analysis) in the US (excluding Alaska and Hawaii)., Exposures: The Dobbs ruling and subsequent state laws restricting abortion procedures. The pre-Dobbs period measured abortion access to all facilities providing abortions in 2021. Post-Dobbs abortion access was measured by simulating the closure of all facilities in the 15 states with existing total or 6-week abortion bans in effect as of September 30, 2022., Main Outcomes and Measures: Median and mean changes in surface travel time (eg, car, public transportation) to an abortion facility in the post-Dobbs period compared with the pre-Dobbs period and the total percentage of females of reproductive age living more than 60 minutes from abortion facilities during the pre- and post-Dobbs periods., Results: Of 1134 abortion facilities in the US (at least 1 in every state; 8 in Alaska and Hawaii excluded), 749 were considered active during the pre-Dobbs period and 671 were considered active during a simulated post-Dobbs period. Median (IQR) and mean (SD) travel times to pre-Dobbs abortion facilities were estimated to be 10.9 (4.3-32.4) and 27.8 (42.0) minutes. Travel time to abortion facilities in the post-Dobbs period significantly increased (paired sample t test P <.001) to an estimated median (IQR) of 17.0 (4.9-124.5) minutes and a mean (SD) of and 100.4 (161.5) minutes. In the post-Dobbs period, an estimated 33.3% (sensitivity interval, 32.3%-34.8%) of females of reproductive age lived in a census tract more than 60 minutes from an abortion facility compared with 14.6.% (sensitivity interval, 13.0%-16.9%) of females of reproductive age in the pre-Dobbs period., Conclusions and Relevance: In this repeated cross-sectional spatial analysis, estimated travel time to abortion facilities in the US was significantly greater in the post-Dobbs period after accounting for the closure of abortion facilities in states with total or 6-week abortion bans compared with the pre-Dobbs period, during which all facilities providing abortions in 2021 were considered active.

Competing Interests: Declaration of interests: Abigail Aiken’s research is supported by grants from the Society of Family Planning (SFP) and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) awarded to the University of Texas at Austin. She is a council member for the British Society of Abortion Care Providers (BSACP). Ushma Upadhyay’s research is supported by grants from the BaSe Family Fund, the Lisa and Douglas Goldman Fund, the Preston-Werner Foundation, the Isabel Allende Foundation, and the Grove Foundation.

Importance: Many people face barriers to abortion care, including long distances to an abortion facility., Objectives: To investigate the association of distance to the nearest abortion facility with abortion or pregnancy outcome., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted using data from the Google Ads Abortion Access study, a prospective cohort study of individuals considering abortion recruited between August 2017 and May 2018. Individuals from 50 states and Washington, District of Columbia, who were pregnant and considering abortion based on self-report were recruited online using a stratified sampling technique. Participants completed online baseline and 4-week follow-up surveys. Data were analyzed between May and August 2021., Exposures: Driving distance to an abortion facility calculated from participant zip code and grouped into 4 categories (<5 miles, 5-24 miles, 25-49 miles, and ≥50 miles)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Abortion or pregnancy outcome reported at 4-week follow-up, categorized as had an abortion, still seeking an abortion, or planning to continue pregnancy. Other measures included reported experience of 8 distance-related barriers to abortion, such as having to gather money for travel expenses and having to keep the abortion a secret., Results: Among 1485 pregnant individuals considering abortion who completed the baseline survey and provided contact information, 1005 individuals completed follow-up (follow-up rate, 67.7%) and 856 participants were included in the analytic sample (443 individuals ages 25-34 years [51.8%]; 208 Black individuals [24.3%]; 101 Hispanic or Latinx individuals [11.8%], and 468 White individuals [54.8%]). Most participants had at least some college education (474 individuals [55.5%]). Distance to an abortion facility was less than 5 miles for 233 individuals (27.2%), 5 to 24 miles for 373 individuals (43.6%), 25 to 49 miles for 85 individuals (9.9%), and 50 or more miles for 165 individuals (19.3%) (mean [SD] distance = 28.3 [43.8] miles). Most participants reported at least 1 distance-related barrier (763 individuals [89.1%]), with a mean of 3.3 barriers (95% CI, 3.2-3.5 barriers) reported. For 7 of 8 distance-related barriers, an increased percentage of participants living farther from an abortion facility reported the barrier compared with participants living less than 5 miles from a facility; for example, 61.8% (95% CI, 53.5%-69.4%) of individuals living less than 5 miles reported having to gather money for travel expenses, while 81.2% (95% CI, 70.8%-88.5%; P = .002) of those living 25 to 49 miles and 75.8% (95% CI, 69.9%-81.0%; P = .02) of those living 50 or more miles from a facility reported this barrier. At follow-up, participants living 50 or more miles from a facility had higher odds of still being pregnant and seeking abortion (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.07; 95% CI, 1.35-3.17; P = .001) or planning to continue pregnancy (aOR = 1.96; 95% CI, 1.06-3.63; P = .03) compared with participants living within 5 miles., Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that greater distance from an abortion facility was associated with delays in obtaining abortion care and inability to receive abortion care. These findings suggest that innovative approaches to abortion provision may be needed to mitigate outcomes associated with long distances to abortion facilities.

Importance: Screening for medication abortion eligibility typically includes ultrasonography or pelvic examination. To reduce physical contact during the COVID-19 pandemic, many clinicians stopped requiring tests before medication abortion and instead screened patients for pregnancy duration and ectopic pregnancy risk by history alone. However, few US-based studies have been conducted on the outcomes and safety of this novel model of care., Objective: To evaluate the outcomes and safety of a history-based screening, no-test approach to medication abortion care., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients obtaining a medication abortion without preabortion ultrasonography or pelvic examination between February 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, at 14 independent, Planned Parenthood, academic-affiliated, and online-only clinics throughout the US., Exposures: Medications for abortion provided without preabortion ultrasonography or pelvic examination and dispensed to patients in person or by mail., Main Outcomes and Measures: Effectiveness, defined as complete abortion after 200 μg of mifepristone and up to 1600 μg of misoprostol without additional intervention, and major abortion-related adverse events, defined as hospital admission, major surgery, or blood transfusion., Results: The study included data on 3779 patients with eligible abortions. The study participants were racially and ethnically diverse and included 870 (23.0%) Black patients, 533 (14.1%) Latinx/Hispanic patients, 1623 (42.9%) White patients, and 327 (8.7%) who identified as multiracial or with other racial or ethnic groups. For most (2626 [69.5%]), it was their first medication abortion. Patients lived in 34 states, and 2785 (73.7%) lived in urban areas. In 2511 (66.4%) abortions, the medications were dispensed in person; in the other 1268 (33.6%), they were mailed to the patient. Follow-up data were obtained for 2825 abortions (74.8%), and multiple imputation was used to account for missing data. Across the sample, 12 abortions (0.54%; 95% CI, 0.18%-0.90%) were followed by major abortion-related adverse events, and 4 patients (0.22%; 95% CI, 0.00%-0.45%) were treated for ectopic pregnancies. Follow-up identified 9 (0.40%; 95% CI, 0.00%-0.84%) patients who had pregnancy durations of greater than 70 days on the date the mifepristone was dispensed that were not identified at screening. The adjusted effectiveness rate was 94.8% (95% CI, 93.6%-95.9%). Effectiveness was similar when medications were dispensed in person (95.4%; 95% CI, 94.1%-96.7%) or mailed (93.3%; 95% CI, 90.7%-95.9%)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, screening for medication abortion eligibility by history alone was effective and safe with either in-person dispensing or mailing of medications, resulting in outcomes similar to published rates of models involving ultrasonography or pelvic examination. This approach may facilitate more equitable access to this essential service by increasing the types of clinicians and locations offering abortion care.

The Hyde Amendment prevents federal funds, including Medicaid, from covering abortion care, and many states have legal restrictions that prevent private insurance plans from covering abortion. As a result, most people pay for abortion out of pocket. We examined patient self-pay charges for three abortion types (medication abortion, first-trimester procedural abortion, and second-trimester abortion), as well as facilities' acceptance of health insurance, during the period 2017-20. We found that during this time, median patient charges increased for medication abortion (from $495 to $560) and first-trimester procedural abortion (from $475 to $575) but not second-trimester abortion (from $935 to $895). The proportion of facilities that accept insurance decreased over time (from 89 percent to 80 percent). We noted substantial regional variation, with the South having lower costs and lower insurance acceptance. Charges for first-trimester procedural abortions are increasing, and acceptance of health insurance is declining. According to the Federal Reserve, one-quarter of Americans could not pay for a $400 emergency expense solely with the money in their bank accounts-an amount lower than any abortion cost in 2020. Lifting Hyde restrictions and requiring public and private health insurance to cover this essential, time-sensitive health service without copays or deductibles would greatly reduce the financial burden of abortion.