Measuring the Relationship Between the 2019 Title X Final Rule and Patients’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Care Access and Behavior in Iowa Using a Difference-in-Difference Approach

IF 2.5 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Megan L. Kavanaugh, Ellie Leong, Madeleine Haas
{"title":"Measuring the Relationship Between the 2019 Title X Final Rule and Patients’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Care Access and Behavior in Iowa Using a Difference-in-Difference Approach","authors":"Megan L. Kavanaugh, Ellie Leong, Madeleine Haas","doi":"10.1007/s13178-023-00876-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Introduction Previous research has documented how the implementation of the 2019 Title X Final Rule reduced the Title X network capacity and led to decreases in patient numbers. Our objective was to examine the relationship between the Rule and patients’ reproductive health care access and outcomes. Methods Our analysis draws on panel data from patients recruited when seeking publicly funded family planning care in Iowa between May 2018 and February 2019 who completed a baseline survey and agreed to be contacted for follow-up surveys at 6-, 12-, 18-, and/or 24-month intervals. We employ a difference-in-difference (DiD) approach, comparing reproductive health outcomes (access to care and contraceptive use) of respondents who had recently received care at sites that eventually left the Title X system following the Rule, the exposed group, to outcomes among those who had recently received care at sites that did not shift from being in the Title X system to exiting it, the control group, both before and after its implementation. Results After adjusting for respondents’ demographic characteristics in the DiD models, we found that those in the exposure group were 11% less likely to have received recent contraceptive care compared to respondents in the control group after the implementation of the Title X Final Rule when examining the full study period ( p < .01). When examining only the pre-COVID 19 time period, we found that respondents in the exposure group were 13% less likely to have been using a provider-involved method ( p < 0.01), 11% less likely to have been using a method that carries a cost ( p < 0.05), and 18% less likely to report being satisfied with their method ( p < 0.001) compared to respondents in the control group. Conclusions Using Iowa as a case study to understand how the 2019 Title X Final Rule may have changed family planning patients’ sexual and reproductive health outcomes, we found evidence of a negative association of the Rule with patients’ access to, and use of, contraception. Policy Implications These findings expand the evidence base of the influence of the 2019 Title X Final Rule on the Title X health care system and its capacity to provide SRH care by highlighting the trickle-down effects of the Rule on patients themselves. Policies that restrict access to any aspect of sexual and reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion, are in direct conflict with people’s realization of reproductive autonomy.","PeriodicalId":47654,"journal":{"name":"Sexuality Research and Social Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sexuality Research and Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-023-00876-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Previous research has documented how the implementation of the 2019 Title X Final Rule reduced the Title X network capacity and led to decreases in patient numbers. Our objective was to examine the relationship between the Rule and patients’ reproductive health care access and outcomes. Methods Our analysis draws on panel data from patients recruited when seeking publicly funded family planning care in Iowa between May 2018 and February 2019 who completed a baseline survey and agreed to be contacted for follow-up surveys at 6-, 12-, 18-, and/or 24-month intervals. We employ a difference-in-difference (DiD) approach, comparing reproductive health outcomes (access to care and contraceptive use) of respondents who had recently received care at sites that eventually left the Title X system following the Rule, the exposed group, to outcomes among those who had recently received care at sites that did not shift from being in the Title X system to exiting it, the control group, both before and after its implementation. Results After adjusting for respondents’ demographic characteristics in the DiD models, we found that those in the exposure group were 11% less likely to have received recent contraceptive care compared to respondents in the control group after the implementation of the Title X Final Rule when examining the full study period ( p < .01). When examining only the pre-COVID 19 time period, we found that respondents in the exposure group were 13% less likely to have been using a provider-involved method ( p < 0.01), 11% less likely to have been using a method that carries a cost ( p < 0.05), and 18% less likely to report being satisfied with their method ( p < 0.001) compared to respondents in the control group. Conclusions Using Iowa as a case study to understand how the 2019 Title X Final Rule may have changed family planning patients’ sexual and reproductive health outcomes, we found evidence of a negative association of the Rule with patients’ access to, and use of, contraception. Policy Implications These findings expand the evidence base of the influence of the 2019 Title X Final Rule on the Title X health care system and its capacity to provide SRH care by highlighting the trickle-down effects of the Rule on patients themselves. Policies that restrict access to any aspect of sexual and reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion, are in direct conflict with people’s realization of reproductive autonomy.
使用差异中的差异方法测量爱荷华州2019年标题X最终规则与患者性健康和生殖健康保健获取和行为之间的关系
之前的研究已经记录了2019年标题X最终规则的实施如何降低标题X网络容量并导致患者数量减少。我们的目标是研究该规则与患者获得生殖保健和结果之间的关系。我们的分析利用了2018年5月至2019年2月在爱荷华州寻求公共资助的计划生育护理时招募的患者的小组数据,这些患者完成了基线调查,并同意每隔6个月、12个月、18个月和/或24个月进行随访调查。我们采用差异中的差异(DiD)方法,比较最近在最终根据规则离开标题X系统的地点接受治疗的受访者(暴露组)的生殖健康结果(获得护理和避孕措施的使用),以及最近在未从标题X系统转变为退出该系统的地点接受治疗的受访者(对照组)的结果,在实施前后。结果在DiD模型中调整了受访者的人口统计学特征后,我们发现在检查整个研究期间,在实施标题X最终规则后,与对照组的受访者相比,暴露组的受访者接受近期避孕护理的可能性低11% (p <. 01)。当仅检查covid - 19之前的时间段时,我们发现暴露组的受访者使用供应商参与方法的可能性降低了13% (p <0.01),使用有成本的方法的可能性降低11% (p <0.05),报告对其方法满意的可能性降低18% (p <0.001),与对照组的应答者相比。我们以爱荷华州为案例研究,了解2019年第十条最终规则如何改变计划生育患者的性健康和生殖健康结果,我们发现了该规则与患者获得和使用避孕措施负相关的证据。这些发现通过强调该规则对患者本身的涓滴效应,扩大了2019年标题X最终规则对标题X医疗系统及其提供SRH护理能力的影响的证据基础。限制获得性保健和生殖保健的任何方面的政策,包括避孕和堕胎,都与人民实现生殖自主直接冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
Sexuality Research and Social Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
100
期刊介绍: Sexuality Research and Social Policy is an international multidisciplinary forum for the publication of original peer-reviewed state-of-the-art empirical research on sexuality, theoretical and methodological discussions, and the implications of this evidence for policies across the globe regarding sexual health, sexuality education, and sexual rights in diverse communities. The journal also publishes brief research and conference reports; white papers; book, film, and other reviews; together with guest editorials and commentaries. Sexuality Research and Social Policy occasionally publishes special issues on timely topics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信