Decreasing reproductive and abortion care barriers: findings on the student health center's role from a student survey.


Journal

BMC women's health
ISSN: 1472-6874
Titre abrégé: BMC Womens Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088690

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
24 02 2023
Historique:
received: 28 10 2022
accepted: 15 02 2023
entrez: 24 2 2023
pubmed: 25 2 2023
medline: 3 3 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

College-aged young adults in the US have low utilization and high need for reproductive healthcare. Multiple barriers to reproductive care exist. University Student Health Centers (SHCs) provide varying degrees of reproductive products and services. Recently, California legislated that public university SHCs add medication abortion to their care. To examine existing attitudes and barriers to reproductive healthcare for public university students, we conducted an anonymous online survey at a large, diverse, urban coastal California State University. Students were asked about numerous barriers accessing reproductive services in general and at the SHC, which we categorized into three groups: stigma, access and system. Respondents were also asked about knowledge and preferences for accessing and recommending various services. To understand the extent to which inequities exist, we compared differences across racialized/ethnic identity, gender identity, anticipated degree, and living distance from campus using chi-squared tests. The majority of survey (n = 273) respondents experienced stigma and access barriers in general healthcare settings which made obtaining reproductive healthcare for themselves or their partners difficult (stigma barriers 55%; 95% CI 49%-61%; access barriers 68%; 95% CI 62-73%). Notably, students reported statistically significant lower rates of access barriers at the SHC, 50%, than in general reproductive healthcare settings, 68%. There were limited differences by student demographics. Students also reported a high willingness to use or recommend the SHC for pregnancy tests (73%; 95% CI 67-78%), emergency contraception pills (72%; 95% CI 66-78%) and medication abortion (60%; 95% CI 54-66%). Students were less likely to know where to access medication abortion compared to other services, suggesting unmet need. Our study provides evidence that students face barriers accessing reproductive healthcare and that SHCs are a trusted and accessible source of this care. SHCs have a key role in increasing health, academic and gender equity in the post-Roe era. Attention and financial support must be paid to SHCs to ensure success as state legislatures mandate them to expand reproductive and abortion care access.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
College-aged young adults in the US have low utilization and high need for reproductive healthcare. Multiple barriers to reproductive care exist. University Student Health Centers (SHCs) provide varying degrees of reproductive products and services. Recently, California legislated that public university SHCs add medication abortion to their care.
METHODS
To examine existing attitudes and barriers to reproductive healthcare for public university students, we conducted an anonymous online survey at a large, diverse, urban coastal California State University. Students were asked about numerous barriers accessing reproductive services in general and at the SHC, which we categorized into three groups: stigma, access and system. Respondents were also asked about knowledge and preferences for accessing and recommending various services. To understand the extent to which inequities exist, we compared differences across racialized/ethnic identity, gender identity, anticipated degree, and living distance from campus using chi-squared tests.
RESULTS
The majority of survey (n = 273) respondents experienced stigma and access barriers in general healthcare settings which made obtaining reproductive healthcare for themselves or their partners difficult (stigma barriers 55%; 95% CI 49%-61%; access barriers 68%; 95% CI 62-73%). Notably, students reported statistically significant lower rates of access barriers at the SHC, 50%, than in general reproductive healthcare settings, 68%. There were limited differences by student demographics. Students also reported a high willingness to use or recommend the SHC for pregnancy tests (73%; 95% CI 67-78%), emergency contraception pills (72%; 95% CI 66-78%) and medication abortion (60%; 95% CI 54-66%). Students were less likely to know where to access medication abortion compared to other services, suggesting unmet need.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study provides evidence that students face barriers accessing reproductive healthcare and that SHCs are a trusted and accessible source of this care. SHCs have a key role in increasing health, academic and gender equity in the post-Roe era. Attention and financial support must be paid to SHCs to ensure success as state legislatures mandate them to expand reproductive and abortion care access.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36829147
doi: 10.1186/s12905-023-02230-5
pii: 10.1186/s12905-023-02230-5
pmc: PMC9951129
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

84

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s).

Références

Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb 1;137(2):225-233
pubmed: 33416284
Health Educ Behav. 2021 Feb;48(1):14-19
pubmed: 33131325
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2019 Dec;28(12):1623-1631
pubmed: 31282804
J Am Coll Health. 2021 Jul 02;:1-8
pubmed: 34212823
Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2022 Dec;54(4):128-141
pubmed: 36404279
J Am Coll Health. 2023 Jan 3;:1-5
pubmed: 36595656
Contraception. 2022 May;109:32-36
pubmed: 34971602
Contraception. 2018 Oct;98(4):306-311
pubmed: 29778584
Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Jun 1;139(6):1111-1122
pubmed: 35675608
Contraception. 2019 Nov;100(5):367-373
pubmed: 31376381
Contraception. 2018 Oct;98(4):301-305
pubmed: 29860062
Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2020 Dec;52(4):227-234
pubmed: 33332717
BMC Womens Health. 2013 Jul 05;13:29
pubmed: 23829590
J Adolesc Health. 2018 Aug;63(2):249-252
pubmed: 29895472
J Community Health. 2017 Feb;42(1):155-159
pubmed: 27604424
J Am Coll Health. 2018 May-Jun;66(4):259-268
pubmed: 29405874
Contraception. 2022 Apr;108:1-3
pubmed: 34971608

Auteurs

Cynthia D Rohrer (CD)

Public Health Department, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA, 94132, USA.

Sepideh Modrek (S)

Health Equity Institute and Department of Economics, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA, 94132, USA. smodrek@sfsu.edu.

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