Early pregnancy confirmation availability at crisis pregnancy centers and abortion facilities in the United States.

Crisis pregnancy center Early pregnancy service Mystery caller study Pregnancy confirmation Pregnancy resource center Secret shopper study

Journal

Contraception
ISSN: 1879-0518
Titre abrégé: Contraception
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0234361

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 2023
Historique:
received: 22 04 2022
revised: 26 08 2022
accepted: 29 08 2022
pubmed: 10 9 2022
medline: 7 12 2022
entrez: 9 9 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) seek to dissuade people from having abortions. Twenty-five states have policies supporting CPCs. We aimed: (1) to characterize access to early pregnancy confirmation at CPCs compared to abortion facilities nationwide and (2) to understand the role of state CPC policy in service access. We conducted a national mystery caller study of 445 CPCs and geographically paired abortion facilities, posing as patients seeking pregnancy confirmation. Facility type (CPC vs abortion facility) was the primary exposure in Aim 1. Wait time to first available early pregnancy appointment was the primary outcome. In Aim 2, state-level CPC policy designation (supportive vs not supportive of CPCs) was the primary exposure. Difference in wait time ≥7 days to first available appointment between CPCs and paired abortion facilities was the primary outcome. CPCs were more likely than abortion facilities to provide same-day appointments (68.5% vs 37.2%, p < 0.0001), and free pregnancy testing (98.0% vs 16.6%, p < 0.0001). The median wait to first available appointment at a CPC was 0 days (IQR 0,1), compared to 1 day at abortion facilities (IQR 0, 5), p < 0.0001. In states with supportive CPC policy environments, abortion facilities were less likely to have wait times exceeding their paired CPC by a week or more, compared to paired facilities in states with non-supportive CPC policy environments (p = 0.033). This remained true after adjusting for state abortion policy environment (p = 0.011). Pregnancy confirmation is more accessible at CPCs compared to abortion facilities. Factors other than state-level CPC policies likely influence service accessibility. There is a need for improved access to pregnancy confirmation in medical settings. Our findings demonstrating that pregnancy confirmation is more accessible at crisis pregnancy centers than at abortion facilities are predicted to be exacerbated in the wake of abortion clinic closures following the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision. This highlights the need for improved funding and support for pregnancy confirmation service delivery in medical settings, including abortion facilities.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36084711
pii: S0010-7824(22)00245-1
doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2022.08.008
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

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

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

30-35

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Auteurs

Kavita Vinekar (K)

University of Pittsburgh, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; University of Pittsburgh, Center for Innovative Research on Gender Health Equity, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. Electronic address: kavita.vinekar@gmail.com.

Marian Jarlenski (M)

University of Pittsburgh, Center for Innovative Research on Gender Health Equity, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.

Leslie Meyn (L)

University of Pittsburgh, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.

Beatrice A Chen (BA)

University of Pittsburgh, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; University of Pittsburgh, Center for Innovative Research on Gender Health Equity, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; Magee-Womens Research Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.

Sharon L Achilles (SL)

University of Pittsburgh, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; University of Pittsburgh, Center for Innovative Research on Gender Health Equity, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; Magee-Womens Research Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.

Sara Tyberg (S)

Magee-Womens Research Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.

Sonya Borrero (S)

University of Pittsburgh, Center for Innovative Research on Gender Health Equity, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.

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