Association of Travel Distance to Nearest Abortion Facility With Rates of Abortion.


Journal

JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 07 2021
Historique:
entrez: 6 7 2021
pubmed: 7 7 2021
medline: 4 1 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Travel distance to abortion services varies widely in the US. Some evidence shows travel distance affects use of abortion care, but there is no national analysis of how abortion rate changes with travel distance. To examine the association between travel distance to the nearest abortion care facility and the abortion rate and to model the effect of reduced travel distance. This cross-sectional geographic analysis used 2015 data on abortions by county of residence from 1948 counties in 27 states. Abortion rates were modeled using a spatial Poisson model adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, marital status, educational attainment, household poverty, nativity, and state abortion policies. Abortion rates for 3107 counties in the 48 contiguous states that were home to 62.5 million female residents of reproductive age (15-44 years) and changes under travel distance scenarios, including integration into primary care (<30 miles) and availability of telemedicine care (<5 miles), were estimated. Data were collected from April 2018 to October 2019 and analyzed from December 2019 to July 2020. Median travel distance by car to the nearest abortion facility. US county abortion rate per 1000 female residents of reproductive age. Among the 1948 counties included in the analysis, greater travel distances were associated with lower abortion rates in a dose-response manner. Compared with a median travel distance of less than 5 miles (median rate, 21.1 [range, 1.2-63.6] per 1000 female residents of reproductive age), distances of 5 to 15 miles (median rate, 12.2 [range, 0.5-23.4] per 1000 female residents of reproductive age; adjusted coefficient, -0.05 [95% CI, -0.07 to -0.03]) and 120 miles or more (median rate, 3.9 [range, 0-12.9] per 1000 female residents of reproductive age; coefficient, -0.73 [95% CI, -0.80 to -0.65]) were associated with lower rates. In a model of 3107 counties with 62.5 million female residents of reproductive age, 696 760 abortions were estimated (mean rate, 11.1 [range, 1.0-45.5] per 1000 female residents of reproductive age). If abortion were integrated into primary care, an additional 18 190 abortions (mean rate, 11.4 [range, 1.1-45.5] per 1000 female residents of reproductive age) were estimated. If telemedicine were widely available, an additional 70 920 abortions were estimated (mean rate, 12.3 [range, 1.4-45.5] per 1000 female residents of reproductive age). These findings suggest that greater travel distances to abortion services are associated with lower abortion rates. The results indicate which geographic areas have insufficient access to abortion care. Modeling suggests that integrating abortion into primary care or making medication abortion care available by telemedicine may decrease unmet need.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34228128
pii: 2781624
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.15530
pmc: PMC8261612
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e2115530

Références

J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002 Jan;50(1):62-8
pubmed: 12028248
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2;3(11):e2024610
pubmed: 33165610
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2019 Dec;28(12):1623-1631
pubmed: 31282804
JAMA. 2018 Mar 27;319(12):1239-1247
pubmed: 29522161
Lancet Public Health. 2017 Nov;2(11):e493-e500
pubmed: 29253373
PLoS One. 2019 Apr 9;14(4):e0209991
pubmed: 30964860
Lancet Public Health. 2017 Nov;2(11):e484-e485
pubmed: 29253369
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 May;11(5):526-33
pubmed: 23220166
Am J Public Health. 2017 Dec;107(12):1878-1882
pubmed: 29048963
MMWR Surveill Summ. 2018 Nov 23;67(13):1-45
pubmed: 30462632
Am J Epidemiol. 2002 Sep 1;156(5):471-82
pubmed: 12196317
Geospat Health. 2014 May;8(2):557-68
pubmed: 24893033
Rural Remote Health. 2014;14(3):2738
pubmed: 25018129
Soc Sci Med. 2021 Apr;274:113747
pubmed: 33642070
Cancer Causes Control. 2006 Apr;17(3):325-39
pubmed: 16489540
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Sep;130(3):616-624
pubmed: 28816736
J Rural Health. 2009 Fall;25(4):366-71
pubmed: 19780916
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Apr 19;17(1):287
pubmed: 28420438
JAMA. 2017 Jan 24;317(4):437-439
pubmed: 28114666
J Med Internet Res. 2018 May 14;20(5):e186
pubmed: 29759954
Contraception. 2019 Nov;100(5):367-373
pubmed: 31376381
Am J Public Health. 2016 May;106(5):857-64
pubmed: 26985603
Am J Public Health. 2017 Dec;107(12):1904-1909
pubmed: 29048970
Socioecon Plann Sci. 1992 Oct;26(4):275-87
pubmed: 10123094
Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2020 Dec;52(4):227-234
pubmed: 33332717

Auteurs

Kirsten M J Thompson (KMJ)

Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco.

Hugh J W Sturrock (HJW)

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco.

Diana Greene Foster (DG)

Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco.

Ushma D Upadhyay (UD)

Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH