Association Between Distance to an Abortion Facility and Abortion or Pregnancy Outcome Among a Prospective Cohort of People Seeking Abortion Online.


Journal

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

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 05 2022
Historique:
entrez: 13 5 2022
pubmed: 14 5 2022
medline: 20 5 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Many people face barriers to abortion care, including long distances to an abortion facility. To investigate the association of distance to the nearest abortion facility with abortion or pregnancy outcome. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35560050
pii: 2792291
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.12065
pmc: PMC9107030
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e2212065

Subventions

Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : P2C HD050924
Pays : United States

Références

J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2019 Dec;28(12):1623-1631
pubmed: 31282804
Epidemiology. 2016 Jan;27(1):98-104
pubmed: 26484423
Am J Public Health. 2014 Sep;104(9):1687-94
pubmed: 23948000
Lancet Public Health. 2017 Nov;2(11):e493-e500
pubmed: 29253373
Womens Health Issues. 2016 May-Jun;26(3):298-304
pubmed: 26897655
PLoS One. 2019 Apr 9;14(4):e0209991
pubmed: 30964860
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Apr 19;17(1):287
pubmed: 28420438
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Aug 2;4(8):e2122320
pubmed: 34427682
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2013 Aug;22(8):706-13
pubmed: 23863075
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 25;12(1):e0169969
pubmed: 28121999
Am J Public Health. 2016 Jun;106(6):970-1
pubmed: 27153009
BJOG. 2019 Aug;126(9):1094-1102
pubmed: 30869829
Contraception. 2019 Sep;100(3):173-177
pubmed: 31170384
Womens Health Issues. 2021 Sep-Oct;31(5):426-431
pubmed: 34266708
Health Soc Work. 2019 Feb 1;44(1):13-21
pubmed: 30561624
Contracept X. 2019 Nov 28;2:100017
pubmed: 32550532
Contracept Reprod Med. 2021 Mar 1;6(1):5
pubmed: 33641662
Soc Sci Med. 2021 Apr;274:113747
pubmed: 33642070
Womens Health Issues. 2014 Mar-Apr;24(2):e211-8
pubmed: 24630423
Am J Public Health. 2013 Jan;103(1):73-8
pubmed: 23153158
JAMA. 2017 Jan 24;317(4):437-439
pubmed: 28114666
J Med Internet Res. 2018 May 14;20(5):e186
pubmed: 29759954
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Jul 1;4(7):e2115530
pubmed: 34228128
Am J Public Health. 2016 May;106(5):857-64
pubmed: 26985603
Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Apr;133(4):771-779
pubmed: 30870293
Am J Public Health. 2017 Dec;107(12):1904-1909
pubmed: 29048970
Fam Plann Perspect. 1976 Nov-Dec;8(6):260-2
pubmed: 1001409
Am J Public Health. 2013 Mar;103(3):454-61
pubmed: 23327244
Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2017 Mar;49(1):17-27
pubmed: 28094905
Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2020 Dec;52(4):227-234
pubmed: 33332717

Auteurs

Elizabeth A Pleasants (EA)

School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley.

Alice F Cartwright (AF)

Department of Maternal and Child Health, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Ushma D Upadhyay (UD)

Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, Oakland.

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