"That's not how abortions happen": a qualitative study exploring how young adults navigate abortion misinformation in the post-Roe era.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES
Jennifer N John, Allie Westley, Paul D Blumenthal, Lee M Sanders
{"title":"\"That's not how abortions happen\": a qualitative study exploring how young adults navigate abortion misinformation in the post-Roe era.","authors":"Jennifer N John, Allie Westley, Paul D Blumenthal, Lee M Sanders","doi":"10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Misinformation about abortion is widespread and was exacerbated by the overturn of <i>Roe v Wade</i>. Young adults are among those facing the most direct impacts of new abortion restrictions and are more likely to access health information from online sources, where misinformation is prevalent. We explored how young adults perceive and evaluate abortion-related information in a time of heightened abortion restrictions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 25 young adults (aged 18-24 years, 56% assigned female at birth), recruited across 17 US states (44% living in states with restrictive abortion policies), between June and September 2022. We derived themes from the interviews using reflexive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>While many participants were aware of and had personally encountered abortion misinformation, their susceptibility to false claims varied substantially based on their previous knowledge of abortion and exposure to anti-abortion rhetoric. Participants tended to reject some common myths regarding the medical risks of abortion (eg, association with breast cancer), while expressing a wider range of views regarding its impacts on fertility and mental health. When presented with contradictory sources of abortion information, most participants were unable to confidently reject the misleading source. Knowledge gaps left participants vulnerable to misinformation, while prior scepticism of anti-abortion rhetoric protected participants against misinformation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this diverse national sample, young adults demonstrated a range of perceptions of abortion misinformation and approaches to identify it. These results lay the groundwork for future observational and experimental research in public health communication.</p>","PeriodicalId":9219,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202498","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Misinformation about abortion is widespread and was exacerbated by the overturn of Roe v Wade. Young adults are among those facing the most direct impacts of new abortion restrictions and are more likely to access health information from online sources, where misinformation is prevalent. We explored how young adults perceive and evaluate abortion-related information in a time of heightened abortion restrictions.

Methods: We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 25 young adults (aged 18-24 years, 56% assigned female at birth), recruited across 17 US states (44% living in states with restrictive abortion policies), between June and September 2022. We derived themes from the interviews using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results: While many participants were aware of and had personally encountered abortion misinformation, their susceptibility to false claims varied substantially based on their previous knowledge of abortion and exposure to anti-abortion rhetoric. Participants tended to reject some common myths regarding the medical risks of abortion (eg, association with breast cancer), while expressing a wider range of views regarding its impacts on fertility and mental health. When presented with contradictory sources of abortion information, most participants were unable to confidently reject the misleading source. Knowledge gaps left participants vulnerable to misinformation, while prior scepticism of anti-abortion rhetoric protected participants against misinformation.

Conclusions: In this diverse national sample, young adults demonstrated a range of perceptions of abortion misinformation and approaches to identify it. These results lay the groundwork for future observational and experimental research in public health communication.

"堕胎不是这样发生的":一项定性研究,探讨后《罗恩法案》时代的年轻人如何把握堕胎误导信息。
背景:关于堕胎的错误信息非常普遍,而 "罗伊诉韦德 "案的推翻更加剧了这一现象。年轻人是面临新的堕胎限制措施最直接影响的群体之一,他们更有可能从网上获取健康信息,而网上的错误信息非常普遍。我们探讨了在堕胎限制加强的情况下,年轻成年人如何看待和评估与堕胎相关的信息:我们在 2022 年 6 月至 9 月期间对美国 17 个州(44% 生活在限制堕胎政策的州)招募的 25 名年轻成年人(年龄在 18-24 岁之间,56% 出生时被分配为女性)进行了深入的半结构化访谈。我们采用反思性主题分析法从访谈中得出了一些主题:虽然许多参与者都知道并亲身经历过堕胎误导,但他们对虚假说法的敏感度却因其之前对堕胎的了解和对反堕胎言论的接触而存在很大差异。参与者倾向于拒绝接受一些有关堕胎的医疗风险(如与乳腺癌有关)的常见误导,而对堕胎对生育和心理健康的影响则表达了更广泛的观点。当面对相互矛盾的堕胎信息来源时,大多数参与者无法自信地拒绝误导性来源。知识差距使参与者容易受到误导,而之前对反堕胎言论的怀疑则保护了参与者免受误导:在这个多样化的全国样本中,年轻人对堕胎误导信息的看法和识别方法各不相同。这些结果为公共健康传播领域未来的观察和实验研究奠定了基础。
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
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Medicine-Reproductive Medicine
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
6.10%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health is a multiprofessional journal that promotes sexual and reproductive health and wellbeing, and best contraceptive practice, worldwide. It publishes research, debate and comment to inform policy and practice, and recognises the importance of professional-patient partnership.
×
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