Contraception最新文献

{"title":"ESTABLISHING EVIDENCE-BASED CUT-POINTS ON THE DESIRE TO AVOID PREGNANCY MEASURE","authors":"CH Rocca,&nbsp;BW Bullington,&nbsp;M Kavanaugh,&nbsp;D Stulberg,&nbsp;S Borrero,&nbsp;I Muñoz","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111063","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111063","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Scholars express an urgent need for alternative measures to “unintended pregnancy” that capture whether people attain their reproductive preferences. Capitalizing on the strengths of the Desire to Avoid Pregnancy (DAP) scale, we established evidence-based cut-points, defining standardized groupings of pre-pregnancy preferences to expand the scale’s utility.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>More than 45,000 females, aged 18-44, across nine US states completed the DAP scale in the population-based Surveys of Women (2017-2023). We fit data to an item response model and generated a construct map, a visual representation of respondents’ probabilities of endorsing each response category over the 0-4 range of each DAP item. Additionally, we generated predicted probabilities of contraceptive use and incident pregnancy across DAP levels with mixed effects models. In 2024-2025, we twice convened a panel of diverse family planning experts, who identified empirically meaningful DAP groupings and labels based on these materials.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Expert consensus was reached on three DAP groupings. Individuals with High DAP scores (&gt;2.5-4) have responses demonstrating a strong preference to avoid pregnancy. Those with Mid-range scores (&gt;1.5<strong>-</strong>≤2.5) have item responses indicating a moderate preference to avoid pregnancy (ie, uncertain or ambivalent). Individuals with Low DAP scores (0<strong>-</strong>1.5) are open to pregnancy (ie, desire or would be receptive to pregnancy). Approximately 50%, 30%, and 20% of females had High, Mid-range, and Low DAP scores, respectively.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>DAP groupings offer researchers a necessary categorical coding option, facilitating the integration of rigorous, person-centered measures into future research and surveillance. A similar methodology could be employed for other critical measures in reproductive health research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10762,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":"151 ","pages":"Article 111063"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145278314","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Scientific abstracts, featured research at the 2025 Society of Family Planning Annual Meeting","authors":"Anitra Beasley MD, MPH,&nbsp;Blair G. Darney PhD, MPH,&nbsp;Alisa Goldberg MD, MPH,&nbsp;Sadia Haider MD, MPH,&nbsp;Kate Shaw MD, MS,&nbsp;Terri-Ann Thompson PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111181","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111181","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10762,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":"151 ","pages":"Article 111181"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145277979","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"IN OHIO, MANDATORY 24-HOUR WAITING PERIODS FOR ABORTION CARE ARE SELDOM 24 HOURS","authors":"B Liebhard,&nbsp;MH Smith,&nbsp;RB Hood,&nbsp;W Del Negro Skeehan,&nbsp;D Bessett,&nbsp;AH Norris","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111097","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111097","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Prior to August 2024, Ohio laws required at least two in-person appointments, separated by a 24-hour waiting period, to have an abortion. The medical standard-of-care is that people can have an abortion during their initial appointment. To assess the burdens in delays to care, we evaluated sociodemographic, geographic, and abortion characteristics associated with extended waiting periods.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a chart review of people seeking abortion care at three Ohio clinics from 2014 to 2018 (n=6,196). For the 5,498 patients who received an abortion, we computed waiting period (number of days between in-person consent and in-person abortion visit). We used bivariate log-binomial regressions with clustered standard errors to estimate prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% confidence intervals associated with waiting 7+ days vs. 1-6 days.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The median waiting period was six days (IQR=3-9, range=1-78). Just 6% of patients had abortions one day after their first visit. Nearly half (47%) waited 7+ days; 12% waited 14+ days. Patients without a college degree (PR=1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.47) and those residing within 25 miles of the clinic (PR=1.26; 95% CI, 1.13-1.41) were more likely to wait 7+ days. Among patients who received a procedural abortion, those who presented at less than 15 weeks’ gestation were more likely to wait 7+ days (PR=1.44; 95% CI, 1.10-1.88).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Our analysis of the state-mandated waiting period shows delays that are much longer than 24 hours for most patients, and differentially longer for those with less education. Extended waiting between in-person visits compounds other logistical, economic, social, and temporal barriers to abortion care.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10762,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":"151 ","pages":"Article 111097"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145277985","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"DIFFERENCES IN ABORTION FUND MESSAGING IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH: A SOCIAL MEDIA ANALYSIS","authors":"M Vullikanti,&nbsp;AN Vélez-Avilés,&nbsp;S Neill,&nbsp;RL Molina","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111131","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111131","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>For many abortion seekers in the US, abortion funds are their only source of timely information about abortion access. However, this information is frequently only available in English. Approximately 20% of the US population speaks a language other than English at home, and non-English-speaking abortion seekers face even greater barriers in accessing information about abortion. This study sought to understand differences in how abortion funds present information about abortion across languages by analyzing English and Spanish social media posts published by abortion funds.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram posts published by the 95 abortion funds affiliated with the National Network of Abortion Funds between June 2022 and January 2025 were collected for large-scale linguistic analysis. Some 10% of posts were randomly sampled for qualitative thematic analysis through an inductive coding process guided by the conceptual framework, “Trajectories of Women’s Abortion-Related Care” by two investigators.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Some 10,118 total social media posts were found (10,051 English, 66 Spanish, and 1 Portuguese). Only 16 abortion funds (17%) published social media posts in non-English languages. Linguistic analysis showed 55% of English social media posts referenced sexual health and well-being compared to only 13% of Spanish posts. Thematic analysis revealed that English posts primarily described the sociopolitical landscape of abortion and calls for fundraising, while Spanish posts primarily described access to services at specific abortion funds.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Most abortion funds published posts in English only, and messaging varied greatly by language. Future work should explore hidden assumptions that may drive this difference in information presentation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10762,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":"151 ","pages":"Article 111131"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145277934","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"TEXAS MINORS’ USE OF TITLE X SERVICES FOLLOWING A LOSS OF CONFIDENTIALITY PROTECTIONS","authors":"L Ralph,&nbsp;G Sierra,&nbsp;K White","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111055","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111055","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>A December 2022 ruling in <em>Deanda v. Becerra</em> removed confidentiality protections for minors accessing Title-X supported services in Texas, thereby requiring parental consent for contraceptive care. We examine changes in patient volume and characteristics among minors (vs. older adolescents) following this policy change.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We obtained data on all Title X-supported clinical encounters with patients aged ≤19 from both Texas Title-X grantees (n=66,046 encounters; 39,118 individuals) between January 2022 and December 2023, representing one-year pre-(2022) and post-(2023) <em>Deanda</em>. We used Poisson regression to examine the percent change in the absolute number of encounters by age (minors vs. patients aged 18-19), as well as changes in the sociodemographic profile (age; sex; English-language proficiency) of patients accessing care pre- and post-<em>Deanda</em>.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The overall number of encounters among minors decreased by 14.2% (95% CI, -16.2,-12.3%) from 2022 (n=15,796) to 2023 (n=13,549). This decrease was larger than that observed among 18- to 19-year-olds (-6.3% (95% CI, -8.4, -4.4%), p&lt;0.001). The number of encounters decreased among both female (-12.0%, 95% CI, -14.2, -9.7%) and male (-27.2%, 95% CI, -31.3, -23.1%) minors. Declines were larger among minors with limited English proficiency (-22.2%, 95% CI, -26.5, -17.9%) than among those with English proficiency (-7.7%, 95% CI, -10.6, -4.9%), and among those aged <u>&lt;</u> 15 (-16.6, 95% CI, -20.0, -13.3%) compared with 16/17-year-olds (-6.8%, 95% CI, -10.2, -3.5%).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Statewide Title-X utilization data in Texas suggests reduced reproductive healthcare seeking among minors following the loss of confidentiality protections, especially if they were male, younger, and had limited English-proficiency.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10762,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":"151 ","pages":"Article 111055"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145278111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"LEGAL UNCERTAINTY AND THE CHILLING EFFECT OF ABORTION BANS ON CLINICAL CARE","authors":"S Neill,&nbsp;S Landay,&nbsp;E Newton-Hoe,&nbsp;A Beasley,&nbsp;S Narasimhan,&nbsp;J Adkins Murphy,&nbsp;C Spera","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111088","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111088","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>We aimed to identify how physicians understand and adapt to abortion bans in their day-to-day clinical work.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Physicians in emergency medicine, family medicine, or obstetrics and gynecology practicing in states with abortion bans were recruited via professional networks. We conducted virtual semi-structured interviews, including items on understanding of abortion bans and subsequent changes in clinical practice. Multiple coders with diverse reflexivity (physician and non-physician team members) analyzed interviews using thematic analysis via inductive and deductive coding.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Some 30 physicians were interviewed across nine states. Four key themes emerged: (1) Physicians lacked clarity on abortion laws, leading to confusion and avoiding clinical interventions for pregnant patients. (2) There was not consistent institutional or legal guidance; physicians with greater understanding of the laws pursued independent education or were affiliated with advocacy groups. (3) Physicians deferred to specialists (Ob-Gyn, MFM) to interpret and apply abortion bans in clinical practice. (4) Physicians interpreted abortion bans through a medical malpractice lens, anchoring their legal understanding in concepts of liability and risk avoidance, contributing to feelings of stress, defensive practice, and burnout.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Abortion bans exert a chilling effect on the care of pregnant patients across specialties. This effect is driven by legal ambiguity, lack of guidance, and physicians’ understanding of abortion bans through the lens of malpractice. Deferring clinical care and interpretation of abortion bans to Ob-Gyn or MFM specialists adds strain to the already burdened reproductive health workforce. These factors contribute to highly conservative interpretations of abortion bans, limiting a broad range of pregnancy care.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10762,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":"151 ","pages":"Article 111088"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145278121","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"IMPACT OF ABORTION BANS IN TEXAS ON SEXUAL ASSAULT SURVIVOR CARE: A QUALITATIVE STUDY","authors":"A Chatillon,&nbsp;IY Reyes,&nbsp;S Dickman,&nbsp;G Alvarez Pérez,&nbsp;K White","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111086","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111086","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>We aimed to assess how the community and health workforce support survivors of sexual violence in Texas, an abortion ban state without exceptions for rape or incest.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Between May and December 2024, we recruited paid staff at interpersonal-violence-focused organizations (eg, rape crisis centers), healthcare providers, and emergency medical facilities in Texas that worked directly with sexual assault survivors for in-depth interviews. Eligible participants were aged 18 or older, had worked with survivors for at least six months, and spoke English or Spanish. Interviews explored how Texas Senate Bill 8, which prohibited abortions after embryonic cardiac activity, and <em>Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization</em> affected participants’ practices and capacity to support survivors, including those who experienced unwanted pregnancies. We used thematic analysis to develop themes in participants’ understandings and experiences.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Participants (n=36) reported that abortion restrictions made it more difficult to support survivors of sexual assault; they also shared that violent partners used restrictions to enact more control. While participants understood that abortion was no longer legal in Texas, some were uncertain about the legality of providing information about abortion providers’ locations. Participants noted that clients were less open to disclosing unwanted pregnancies or need for abortion, chilling communication and weakening provider-client relationships. Participants also experienced moral injury from the dissonance between professional best practices and the personal and professional liability associated with enacting them.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Staff who work directly with sexual assault survivors in Texas identify state abortion policy changes as limiting their capacity to provide best-practice support to survivors, and disempowering survivors post-assault.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10762,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":"151 ","pages":"Article 111086"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145278123","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"“IT WAS THE SCARIEST FEW DAYS OF MY LIFE”: APPALACHIAN VIEWS OF SELF-MANAGED ABORTION","authors":"A Alspaugh,&nbsp;Z Amen,&nbsp;B Morgan,&nbsp;D Jackson,&nbsp;G Ely","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111130","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111130","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>We aimed to contextualize individual concerns and needs around self-managed abortions among a sample of Appalachians who have either considered or utilized it.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Data collection occurred via an anonymous Qualtrics survey. The survey was designed for this study, building upon prior data about self-managed abortion and our work in Appalachia. Eligible respondents were pregnancy-capable, older than 18, living in an Appalachian county, and had a history of either considering or utilizing self-managed abortion, regardless of outcome. The survey was pilot-tested by community partners, including abortion doulas and community-based partners in Appalachia. Recruitment took place over social media, both by posting from community partners and using boosted Facebook ads. Open-ended responses were coded using thematic analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Some 177 participants representing every state in Appalachia responded to the survey. Four themes were identified from the open-text responses: 1) Emotional turmoil and psychological distress; 2) Motivations rooted in privacy, accessibility, and cost; 3) Concerns about health risks and need for guidance; and 4) Desire for information, support, and connection.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>These findings highlight that self-managed abortion is often pursued not out of preference but due to barriers such as cost, legal restrictions, stigma, or lack of access to clinical care. While some individuals reported positive or manageable experiences, many described self-managed abortion as physically and emotionally distressing, particularly when undertaken without adequate support or reliable information. The need for accessible, evidence-based resources and nonjudgmental support is clear. Improving access to accurate information, emotional support, and follow-up care could greatly enhance the safety and well-being of those who consider or attempt self-managed abortion in Appalachia.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10762,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":"151 ","pages":"Article 111130"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145278217","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"ABORTION ACCESS IN A POST-DOBBS SOUTHEAST USA: TRAVEL PATTERNS AND RACIAL DISPARITIES","authors":"KB Loeliger,&nbsp;R Aguilera,&nbsp;T Benmarhnia,&nbsp;NE Johns,&nbsp;AG Bryant,&nbsp;A Dempsey,&nbsp;S Averbach","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111126","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111126","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>We assessed the impact of state-level abortion bans on abortion access in the Southeast US following <em>Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization</em>. Until North Carolina’s 12-week ban was implemented on July 1, 2023, it was one of the only southern states that provided second-trimester abortion care; border states had more restrictive laws. We used statewide North Carolina Division of Public Health data to examine changes in abortion utilization by race during 2017-2023.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We used interrupted time series coupled with machine learning and geographic analyses on abortion case data, focusing on out-of-state residents traveling to North Carolina. We compared observed abortion numbers to estimated counterfactual trends and explored variations based on gestational duration and race/ethnicity.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 53,041 total abortions in North Carolina among out-of-state residents, 46.9% occurred post-<em>Dobbs</em>. Based on pre-<em>Dobbs</em> rates, there were an estimated 11,676 more abortions than expected in the first year post-<em>Dobbs</em> and 3,834 more than expected after the 12-week ban. We observed 9,749 (95% empirical CI: 9,643-9,845) additional first-trimester abortions and 1,792 (95% eCI: 1,748-1,837) additional second-trimester abortions during the first year after <em>Dobbs</em>. Post-12-week ban, first-trimester abortions remained significantly elevated, but second-trimester cases were rare. Compared with non-Hispanic White out-of-state individuals, non-Hispanic Black out-of-state individuals had significantly higher additional abortion rates, while Hispanic individuals had significantly lower rates.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>State-level abortion bans shifted abortion travel patterns. North Carolina has become a crucial access point for abortion care in the Southeast. These findings highlight an unmet need for access to abortion care that disproportionately affects Black and Hispanic individuals, emphasizing how abortion bans exacerbate racial disparities in care.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10762,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":"151 ","pages":"Article 111126"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145278385","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS TO ABORTION BY POLICY CONTEXT IN THE MIDWEST POST-DOBBS V JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION","authors":"C Brander,&nbsp;A Wollum,&nbsp;JW Seymour,&nbsp;C McKenna,&nbsp;T Wilkinson,&nbsp;JH Higgins,&nbsp;H Moseson","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111125","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111125","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>State policies shape whether and how abortion seekers can access abortion. We examined how barriers and facilitators to abortion care differed for people considering abortion in states with abortion bans vs. in states without bans.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>From July 2023 to May 2025, we recruited pregnant people considering abortion living in the 12 Midwestern states through Google Ads, and abortion information and abortion fund websites. We compared reported barriers and facilitators to abortion between participants living in states that banned abortion completely or beyond 6 weeks’ gestation (ban state participants, n=151) and those living in states without these bans (non-ban state participants, n=216).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 367 responses, those in ban states reported more barriers than those in non-ban states (average 3.0 vs. 2.3) and fewer facilitators to care (0.9 vs. 1.2). Most commonly, participants reported needing money to pay for the abortion and the logistics to access this care (67.6%), with more people in ban states reporting this barrier (78.5% vs. 63.3%). More participants in ban states than in non-ban states reported facing logistical barriers (42.3% vs. 24.6%) and fearing legal risk to themselves or others (33.6% vs. 13.0%). When asked about facilitators, participants across policy contexts most commonly reported that nothing had helped them (40.1%), and the facilitators that participants reported did not differ greatly by policy context.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>While people seeking abortion across state contexts faced barriers to care, those in ban states reported more financial, logistical, and legal barriers than those in non-ban states.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10762,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":"151 ","pages":"Article 111125"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145278386","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}