Why Men Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives From Urban Family Planning Clinics in Chicago, Illinois, USA.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Jenna M Heath, Brian T Nguyen
{"title":"Why Men Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives From Urban Family Planning Clinics in Chicago, Illinois, USA.","authors":"Jenna M Heath, Brian T Nguyen","doi":"10.1177/15579883241307795","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Support for abortion is comparable between men and women in the United States; one in five reproductive age men reports abortion involvement. Yet, societal focus on abortion as a uniquely women's issue minimizes men's involvement in abortion. We conducted a secondary analysis of survey (<i>n</i> = 203) and interview data (<i>n</i> = 30) on male partner's experiences accompanying abortion recipients at two family planning clinics in Chicago, Illinois. Respondents identified reasons for abortion from a prepopulated 14-item list. We correlated reasons with respondent's abortion preference and decision satisfaction, characterizing this relationship via thematic analyses of interview transcripts. Nearly all men (97.5%) identified multiple reasons for abortion (median: 6/14), including: mistimed pregnancy (80%), impact on his/his partner's education/career (75%-80%), and finances (71%). Neither individual reasons nor number of reasons was significantly associated with abortion decision preference or decision satisfaction. While 41% would not have chosen abortion, only 10% reported dissatisfaction. Men's perception of decision concordance with their partner was significantly linked to their satisfaction (<i>p</i> < .01). Thematic analysis highlighted complex partner involvement, including shared and deferred decision-making and tension amid demonstrated support. Many abortion-accompanying men preferred to continue the pregnancy, yet very few reported dissatisfaction with the ultimate decision, which may be related to perceived decision concordance with their female partner. Men's decisions for abortion are complex and include varying degrees of male partner involvement and/or decision deferral to female partners.</p>","PeriodicalId":7429,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Men's Health","volume":"19 1","pages":"15579883241307795"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11811970/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Men's Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15579883241307795","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Support for abortion is comparable between men and women in the United States; one in five reproductive age men reports abortion involvement. Yet, societal focus on abortion as a uniquely women's issue minimizes men's involvement in abortion. We conducted a secondary analysis of survey (n = 203) and interview data (n = 30) on male partner's experiences accompanying abortion recipients at two family planning clinics in Chicago, Illinois. Respondents identified reasons for abortion from a prepopulated 14-item list. We correlated reasons with respondent's abortion preference and decision satisfaction, characterizing this relationship via thematic analyses of interview transcripts. Nearly all men (97.5%) identified multiple reasons for abortion (median: 6/14), including: mistimed pregnancy (80%), impact on his/his partner's education/career (75%-80%), and finances (71%). Neither individual reasons nor number of reasons was significantly associated with abortion decision preference or decision satisfaction. While 41% would not have chosen abortion, only 10% reported dissatisfaction. Men's perception of decision concordance with their partner was significantly linked to their satisfaction (p < .01). Thematic analysis highlighted complex partner involvement, including shared and deferred decision-making and tension amid demonstrated support. Many abortion-accompanying men preferred to continue the pregnancy, yet very few reported dissatisfaction with the ultimate decision, which may be related to perceived decision concordance with their female partner. Men's decisions for abortion are complex and include varying degrees of male partner involvement and/or decision deferral to female partners.

在美国,男性和女性对堕胎的支持程度相当;每五名育龄男性中就有一人报告参与过堕胎。然而,社会将堕胎视为女性独有的问题,从而将男性参与堕胎的程度降至最低。我们对伊利诺伊州芝加哥市两家计划生育诊所的男性伴侣陪同堕胎者的经历进行了调查(n = 203)和访谈(n = 30)数据的二次分析。受访者从预先填好的 14 个项目列表中找出了堕胎的原因。我们将堕胎原因与受访者的堕胎偏好和堕胎决定满意度相关联,并通过对访谈记录进行主题分析来描述这种关系。几乎所有男性(97.5%)都指出了堕胎的多个原因(中位数:6/14),其中包括:怀孕时机不对 (80%)、对其伴侣教育/职业生涯的影响 (75%-80%) 以及经济问题 (71%)。个人原因或原因数量与堕胎决定倾向或决定满意度均无明显关联。虽然 41% 的人不会选择堕胎,但只有 10% 的人表示不满意。男性认为与其伴侣的决定是否一致与他们的满意度有很大关系(p < .01)。专题分析强调了伴侣参与的复杂性,包括共同决策和推迟决策,以及在表明支持的同时出现的紧张关系。许多陪同堕胎的男性倾向于继续妊娠,但很少有男性对最终决定表示不满,这可能与其认为与女性伴侣的决策一致有关。男性堕胎的决定是复杂的,包括不同程度的男性伴侣参与和/或将决定权推迟给女性伴侣。
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
American Journal of Men's Health
American Journal of Men's Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.30%
发文量
107
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: American Journal of Men"s Health will be a core resource for cutting-edge information regarding men"s health and illness. The Journal will publish papers from all health, behavioral and social disciplines, including but not limited to medicine, nursing, allied health, public health, health psychology/behavioral medicine, and medical sociology and anthropology.
×
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