US Physicians' Perceived Impacts of Abortion Bans in Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine.

IF 9.5 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Chest Pub Date : 2025-03-19 DOI:10.1016/j.chest.2025.03.008
Katrina E Hauschildt, Avnee J Kumar, Elizabeth M Viglianti, Kelly C Vranas, Taylor Bernstein, Leslie Moroz, Theodore J Iwashyna
{"title":"US Physicians' Perceived Impacts of Abortion Bans in Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine.","authors":"Katrina E Hauschildt, Avnee J Kumar, Elizabeth M Viglianti, Kelly C Vranas, Taylor Bernstein, Leslie Moroz, Theodore J Iwashyna","doi":"10.1016/j.chest.2025.03.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Eighteen US states implemented abortion bans between 2022 and 2024. Although emerging evidence shows bans have impacted obstetrics and gynecology, little is known about their impact on other specialties. We hypothesize that pulmonary and critical care medicine may be adversely impacted due to the time-sensitive, high-acuity needs of their patients.</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>How have abortion bans impacted pulmonary and critical care medicine clinical practice and/or the well-being and careers of physicians?</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>Between October 2022 and July 2024, we conducted semistructured interviews via videoconferencing with pulmonary and critical care medicine physicians (n = 29) working in 15 US states about the impacts of abortion bans. We used an abductive approach to analyze interview transcripts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Physicians had a median 7 years in practice, and 16 were women. Physicians described varied impacts for patients and physicians, such as repeated experiences of restricted and delayed treatment, physician moral distress, and impacts to training. Institutional guidance for physicians was often experienced as variable and vague. Concerns about disparate impacts across social groups were pervasive. Physicians also described novel forms of harm mitigation and increased political activation resulting from the implementation of abortion bans.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Abortion bans are impacting patients and physicians in medical specialties outside of obstetrics and gynecology. Additional research is needed to better understand harm mitigation approaches, which may provide policymakers and health care systems with strategies to minimize patient and workforce harms.</p>","PeriodicalId":9782,"journal":{"name":"Chest","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chest","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2025.03.008","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Eighteen US states implemented abortion bans between 2022 and 2024. Although emerging evidence shows bans have impacted obstetrics and gynecology, little is known about their impact on other specialties. We hypothesize that pulmonary and critical care medicine may be adversely impacted due to the time-sensitive, high-acuity needs of their patients.

Research question: How have abortion bans impacted pulmonary and critical care medicine clinical practice and/or the well-being and careers of physicians?

Study design and methods: Between October 2022 and July 2024, we conducted semistructured interviews via videoconferencing with pulmonary and critical care medicine physicians (n = 29) working in 15 US states about the impacts of abortion bans. We used an abductive approach to analyze interview transcripts.

Results: Physicians had a median 7 years in practice, and 16 were women. Physicians described varied impacts for patients and physicians, such as repeated experiences of restricted and delayed treatment, physician moral distress, and impacts to training. Institutional guidance for physicians was often experienced as variable and vague. Concerns about disparate impacts across social groups were pervasive. Physicians also described novel forms of harm mitigation and increased political activation resulting from the implementation of abortion bans.

Interpretation: Abortion bans are impacting patients and physicians in medical specialties outside of obstetrics and gynecology. Additional research is needed to better understand harm mitigation approaches, which may provide policymakers and health care systems with strategies to minimize patient and workforce harms.

美国医生的感知影响堕胎禁令在肺部和重症监护医学。
背景:美国18个州在2022-2024年间实施了堕胎禁令。尽管越来越多的证据表明禁令影响了妇产科,但对其他专业的影响知之甚少。我们假设,由于患者的时间敏感性和高敏锐度需求,肺部和重症监护医学可能受到不利影响。研究问题:堕胎禁令如何影响肺部和重症医学临床实践和/或医生的福祉和职业?研究设计和方法:在2022年10月至2024年7月期间,我们通过视频会议对在美国15个州工作的肺部和重症监护医学医生(N=29)进行了半结构化访谈,讨论了堕胎禁令的影响。我们用诱拐法来分析访谈记录。结果:医生从业时间中位数为7年,其中16位为女性。医生描述了对患者和医生的不同影响,如反复经历限制和延迟治疗,医生道德困境以及对培训的影响。对医生的机构指导往往是可变的和模糊的。对不同社会群体的不同影响的担忧普遍存在。医生们还描述了由于堕胎禁令的实施而减轻危害和增加政治活动的新形式。解释:堕胎禁令正在影响产科和妇科以外的医学专业的患者和医生。需要进一步的研究来更好地了解减轻伤害的方法,这可能为决策者和卫生保健系统提供战略,以尽量减少对患者和工作人员的伤害。
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
Chest
Chest 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
13.70
自引率
3.10%
发文量
3369
审稿时长
15 days
期刊介绍: At CHEST, our mission is to revolutionize patient care through the collaboration of multidisciplinary clinicians in the fields of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. We achieve this by publishing cutting-edge clinical research that addresses current challenges and brings forth future advancements. To enhance understanding in a rapidly evolving field, CHEST also features review articles, commentaries, and facilitates discussions on emerging controversies. We place great emphasis on scientific rigor, employing a rigorous peer review process, and ensuring all accepted content is published online within two weeks.
×
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