Lisa H Harris, Amy Simon, Meghan Seewald, Sara Knight, Lisa Martin
{"title":"Doctors' voices generate support for abortion care: Results from a nationally representative survey.","authors":"Lisa H Harris, Amy Simon, Meghan Seewald, Sara Knight, Lisa Martin","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110535","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We tested abortion messaging to develop evidence-based communication recommendations for doctors who provide abortion care.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We conducted an online survey in a nationally representative sample of 1215 people, using National Opinion Research Center's Amerispeak Panel. We surveyed participants before and after viewing two brief videos featuring doctors who provide abortion care speaking about their work. Doctors' comments were grounded in strategic communications and applied psychology research, and emphasized caregiving roles, avoided political-sounding punditry, and acknowledged abortion's complexities. We assessed participants' characterizations of doctors, and how these characterizations impact support for abortion restrictions and views on abortion legality. We analyzed pre-post data using descriptive statistics, t tests, and multivariable regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Postmessaging more participants endorsed positive descriptors of doctors who provide abortion care (p < 0.001, t = 8.99); fewer endorsed negative descriptors (p < 0.001, t = 10.32). Increased postmessaging endorsement of positive descriptors predicted declines in support for abortion restrictions (adjusted odds ratio = 1.69, p < 0.01); decreased endorsement of negative descriptors did not. After messaging, 37% of respondents said their views of doctors who provide abortion care made them less likely to support abortion restrictions, compared to 14% before (p < 0.001, t = -6.9). After messaging, there was more overall support for legal abortion and less for abortion being mostly illegal (46% to 48% and 24% to 22%, p < 0.001; t = -4.11).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When doctors who provide abortion care use messaging recommendations that include speaking about abortion's complexities and avoiding political-sounding punditry, they generate more support for legal abortion and less for restrictions.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>The voices of doctors who provide abortion care shape public opinion. When doctors speak from caregiving perspectives, avoid punditry, and acknowledge abortion's complexities, they generate more support for legal abortion and less for restrictions. However, audiences may not be aware a priori that ideas of doctors shape their views.</p>","PeriodicalId":93955,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contraception","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110535","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: We tested abortion messaging to develop evidence-based communication recommendations for doctors who provide abortion care.
Study design: We conducted an online survey in a nationally representative sample of 1215 people, using National Opinion Research Center's Amerispeak Panel. We surveyed participants before and after viewing two brief videos featuring doctors who provide abortion care speaking about their work. Doctors' comments were grounded in strategic communications and applied psychology research, and emphasized caregiving roles, avoided political-sounding punditry, and acknowledged abortion's complexities. We assessed participants' characterizations of doctors, and how these characterizations impact support for abortion restrictions and views on abortion legality. We analyzed pre-post data using descriptive statistics, t tests, and multivariable regression.
Results: Postmessaging more participants endorsed positive descriptors of doctors who provide abortion care (p < 0.001, t = 8.99); fewer endorsed negative descriptors (p < 0.001, t = 10.32). Increased postmessaging endorsement of positive descriptors predicted declines in support for abortion restrictions (adjusted odds ratio = 1.69, p < 0.01); decreased endorsement of negative descriptors did not. After messaging, 37% of respondents said their views of doctors who provide abortion care made them less likely to support abortion restrictions, compared to 14% before (p < 0.001, t = -6.9). After messaging, there was more overall support for legal abortion and less for abortion being mostly illegal (46% to 48% and 24% to 22%, p < 0.001; t = -4.11).
Conclusions: When doctors who provide abortion care use messaging recommendations that include speaking about abortion's complexities and avoiding political-sounding punditry, they generate more support for legal abortion and less for restrictions.
Implications: The voices of doctors who provide abortion care shape public opinion. When doctors speak from caregiving perspectives, avoid punditry, and acknowledge abortion's complexities, they generate more support for legal abortion and less for restrictions. However, audiences may not be aware a priori that ideas of doctors shape their views.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
