Association Between State Abortion Restrictiveness and Perinatal Depression.

Stephanie V Hall, Andrea Pangori, Faelan Jacobson Davies, Anca Tilea, Rieham Owda, Kara Zivin, Vanessa Dalton
{"title":"Association Between State Abortion Restrictiveness and Perinatal Depression.","authors":"Stephanie V Hall, Andrea Pangori, Faelan Jacobson Davies, Anca Tilea, Rieham Owda, Kara Zivin, Vanessa Dalton","doi":"10.1089/jwh.2024.0533","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Abortion services represent a critical component of reproductive health care. Barriers to a full range of reproductive health care may harm mental health. We sought to determine whether restrictive state-level abortion policies increase the risk of perinatal depression, overall and among women with intended and unintended pregnancies. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> This cross-sectional analysis used surveillance data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment and Monitoring System. Restrictive state-level abortion policies were measured using the Guttmacher Abortion Policy Hostility Index. The primary outcome of interest was incident perinatal depression, measured as a self-reported diagnosis of depression during pregnancy or a positive 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire during the postpartum period. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Women living in states with highly restrictive abortion policies experienced 1.23 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.37) times greater odds of perinatal depression compared to women living in states with less restrictive abortion policies after adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, maternal education, marital status, and insurance type. Women with unintended pregnancies had a higher predicted probability of perinatal depression than women with intended pregnancies in both highly restrictive states (17.3%, 95% CI: 13.9 - 21.3% versus 14.8%, 95% CI: 10.7 - 16.9%) and in less restrictive states (14.8%, 95% CI: 11.7 - 18.5% versus 11.3%, 95% CI: 9.0 - 14.2%). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Restrictive state-level abortion policies were associated with an increased risk of perinatal depression regardless of pregnancy intent. Abortion restrictions may contribute to poor mental health outcomes directly, by obstructing access to wanted abortion services, or indirectly, as a marker for states that do not fully support delivering women with adequate health or social services. The mental health of the birthing population represents an important consideration for evolving reproductive health policies.</p>","PeriodicalId":520699,"journal":{"name":"Journal of women's health (2002)","volume":"34 6","pages":"835-842"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12344566/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of women's health (2002)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2024.0533","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

Introduction: Abortion services represent a critical component of reproductive health care. Barriers to a full range of reproductive health care may harm mental health. We sought to determine whether restrictive state-level abortion policies increase the risk of perinatal depression, overall and among women with intended and unintended pregnancies. Methods: This cross-sectional analysis used surveillance data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment and Monitoring System. Restrictive state-level abortion policies were measured using the Guttmacher Abortion Policy Hostility Index. The primary outcome of interest was incident perinatal depression, measured as a self-reported diagnosis of depression during pregnancy or a positive 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire during the postpartum period. Results: Women living in states with highly restrictive abortion policies experienced 1.23 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.37) times greater odds of perinatal depression compared to women living in states with less restrictive abortion policies after adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, maternal education, marital status, and insurance type. Women with unintended pregnancies had a higher predicted probability of perinatal depression than women with intended pregnancies in both highly restrictive states (17.3%, 95% CI: 13.9 - 21.3% versus 14.8%, 95% CI: 10.7 - 16.9%) and in less restrictive states (14.8%, 95% CI: 11.7 - 18.5% versus 11.3%, 95% CI: 9.0 - 14.2%). Conclusions: Restrictive state-level abortion policies were associated with an increased risk of perinatal depression regardless of pregnancy intent. Abortion restrictions may contribute to poor mental health outcomes directly, by obstructing access to wanted abortion services, or indirectly, as a marker for states that do not fully support delivering women with adequate health or social services. The mental health of the birthing population represents an important consideration for evolving reproductive health policies.

国家堕胎限制与围产期抑郁的关系。
导言:堕胎服务是生殖保健的一个重要组成部分。获得全面生殖保健的障碍可能损害心理健康。我们试图确定限制性的州一级堕胎政策是否会增加围产期抑郁症的风险,无论是总体上还是在有意怀孕和意外怀孕的妇女中。方法:采用妊娠风险评估与监测系统的监测数据进行横断面分析。使用古特马赫堕胎政策敌意指数来衡量限制性的州一级堕胎政策。研究的主要结局是围产期抑郁症的发生率,通过怀孕期间自我报告的抑郁症诊断或产后期间阳性的2项患者健康问卷来测量。结果:在调整了年龄、种族/民族、母亲教育程度、婚姻状况和保险类型后,生活在堕胎政策严格限制州的妇女患围产期抑郁症的几率是生活在堕胎政策限制较少州的妇女的1.23倍(95%置信区间[CI]: 1.12-1.37)。在高限制状态下(17.3%,95% CI: 13.9 - 21.3% vs . 14.8%, 95% CI: 10.7 - 16.9%)和在低限制状态下(14.8%,95% CI: 11.7 - 18.5% vs . 11.3%, 95% CI: 9.0 - 14.2%),意外怀孕的妇女比预期怀孕的妇女有更高的围产期抑郁症的预测概率。结论:无论怀孕意图如何,限制性的州一级堕胎政策与围产期抑郁风险增加相关。堕胎限制可能直接导致心理健康状况不佳,因为它阻碍了获得想要的堕胎服务,也可能间接导致心理健康状况不佳,因为它标志着没有充分支持向妇女提供适当的保健或社会服务的国家。生育人口的心理健康是制定生殖健康政策的一个重要考虑因素。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信