密西西比州堕胎客户对替代性药物流产服务选择的看法。

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Klaira Lerma MPH , Whitney Arey PhD , Eva Strelitz-Block BA , Sacheen Nathan MD, MPH , Kari White PhD, MPH
{"title":"密西西比州堕胎客户对替代性药物流产服务选择的看法。","authors":"Klaira Lerma MPH ,&nbsp;Whitney Arey PhD ,&nbsp;Eva Strelitz-Block BA ,&nbsp;Sacheen Nathan MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Kari White PhD, MPH","doi":"10.1016/j.whi.2023.11.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>We assessed Mississippi abortion clients’ perceptions of alternative medication abortion service delivery options that were restricted under state law but available elsewhere.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted in-depth interviews with medication abortion clients between November 2020 and March 2021 at Mississippi's only abortion facility. We described alternative service delivery models: telemedicine, medications by mail, and follow-up care in their community versus returning to the facility. We asked if participants would be interested in using any of these models, if available, and how use of each model would have changed their abortion experience. We used thematic analysis, organizing codes into common themes based on participants' preferences and concerns for each option.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 25 participants interviewed, nearly all (<em>n</em><span> = 22) expressed interest in at least one option and reported that, had they been available, these would have alleviated cost, travel, and childcare barriers. Many believed these options would further ensure privacy, but a minority thought abortion was too sensitive for telemedicine or were concerned about mailing errors. Participants not interested in the alternative options also feared missing valued aspects of face-to-face care. Most did not return to the facility for follow-up (</span><em>n</em> = 19), citing financial and logistical barriers. Largely, participants were not interested in obtaining follow-up care in their community, citing concerns about provider judgment, stigma, and privacy.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Mississippi abortion clients were interested in models that would make abortion care more convenient while ensuring their privacy and allowing for meaningful client-provider interaction. These features of care should guide the development of strategies aimed at helping those in restricted settings, such as Mississippi, to overcome barriers to abortion care following the implementation of abortion bans in many states following the overturn of <em>Roe v. Wade</em>.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48039,"journal":{"name":"Womens Health Issues","volume":"34 2","pages":"Pages 156-163"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Abortion Clients’ Perceptions of Alternative Medication Abortion Service Delivery Options in Mississippi\",\"authors\":\"Klaira Lerma MPH ,&nbsp;Whitney Arey PhD ,&nbsp;Eva Strelitz-Block BA ,&nbsp;Sacheen Nathan MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Kari White PhD, MPH\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.whi.2023.11.009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>We assessed Mississippi abortion clients’ perceptions of alternative medication abortion service delivery options that were restricted under state law but available elsewhere.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted in-depth interviews with medication abortion clients between November 2020 and March 2021 at Mississippi's only abortion facility. We described alternative service delivery models: telemedicine, medications by mail, and follow-up care in their community versus returning to the facility. We asked if participants would be interested in using any of these models, if available, and how use of each model would have changed their abortion experience. We used thematic analysis, organizing codes into common themes based on participants' preferences and concerns for each option.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 25 participants interviewed, nearly all (<em>n</em><span> = 22) expressed interest in at least one option and reported that, had they been available, these would have alleviated cost, travel, and childcare barriers. Many believed these options would further ensure privacy, but a minority thought abortion was too sensitive for telemedicine or were concerned about mailing errors. Participants not interested in the alternative options also feared missing valued aspects of face-to-face care. Most did not return to the facility for follow-up (</span><em>n</em> = 19), citing financial and logistical barriers. Largely, participants were not interested in obtaining follow-up care in their community, citing concerns about provider judgment, stigma, and privacy.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Mississippi abortion clients were interested in models that would make abortion care more convenient while ensuring their privacy and allowing for meaningful client-provider interaction. These features of care should guide the development of strategies aimed at helping those in restricted settings, such as Mississippi, to overcome barriers to abortion care following the implementation of abortion bans in many states following the overturn of <em>Roe v. Wade</em>.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48039,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Womens Health Issues\",\"volume\":\"34 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 156-163\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Womens Health Issues\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1049386723002104\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Womens Health Issues","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1049386723002104","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的我们评估了密西西比州人工流产客户对其他药物流产服务选择的看法,这些选择受到州法律的限制,但在其他地方可以获得:2020 年 11 月至 2021 年 3 月期间,我们在密西西比州唯一一家人工流产机构对药物流产客户进行了深入访谈。我们介绍了其他服务提供模式:远程医疗、邮寄药物、在社区进行后续护理而非返回流产机构。我们询问参与者是否有兴趣使用其中任何一种模式(如果有的话),以及使用每种模式会如何改变她们的堕胎经历。我们采用了主题分析法,根据参与者对每种选择的偏好和关注点,将代码组织成共同的主题:在 25 名受访者中,几乎所有受访者(n = 22)都表示对至少一种方案感兴趣,并称如果有这些方案的话,将会减轻费用、旅行和儿童保育方面的障碍。许多人认为这些方案将进一步确保隐私,但也有少数人认为堕胎对于远程医疗来说过于敏感,或担心邮寄错误。对替代方案不感兴趣的参与者还担心错过面对面护理的重要环节。大多数人没有返回医疗机构进行随访(n = 19),理由是经济和后勤障碍。大部分参与者对在社区获得后续护理不感兴趣,理由是担心提供者的判断、耻辱感和隐私:密西西比州的人工流产客户对既能使人工流产护理更方便,又能确保其隐私并允许客户与提供者进行有意义的互动的模式很感兴趣。罗伊诉韦德案推翻后,许多州都实施了堕胎禁令,这些护理特点应指导旨在帮助密西西比州等受限环境中的人克服堕胎护理障碍的策略的制定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Abortion Clients’ Perceptions of Alternative Medication Abortion Service Delivery Options in Mississippi

Objectives

We assessed Mississippi abortion clients’ perceptions of alternative medication abortion service delivery options that were restricted under state law but available elsewhere.

Methods

We conducted in-depth interviews with medication abortion clients between November 2020 and March 2021 at Mississippi's only abortion facility. We described alternative service delivery models: telemedicine, medications by mail, and follow-up care in their community versus returning to the facility. We asked if participants would be interested in using any of these models, if available, and how use of each model would have changed their abortion experience. We used thematic analysis, organizing codes into common themes based on participants' preferences and concerns for each option.

Results

Of the 25 participants interviewed, nearly all (n = 22) expressed interest in at least one option and reported that, had they been available, these would have alleviated cost, travel, and childcare barriers. Many believed these options would further ensure privacy, but a minority thought abortion was too sensitive for telemedicine or were concerned about mailing errors. Participants not interested in the alternative options also feared missing valued aspects of face-to-face care. Most did not return to the facility for follow-up (n = 19), citing financial and logistical barriers. Largely, participants were not interested in obtaining follow-up care in their community, citing concerns about provider judgment, stigma, and privacy.

Conclusions

Mississippi abortion clients were interested in models that would make abortion care more convenient while ensuring their privacy and allowing for meaningful client-provider interaction. These features of care should guide the development of strategies aimed at helping those in restricted settings, such as Mississippi, to overcome barriers to abortion care following the implementation of abortion bans in many states following the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
97
审稿时长
32 days
期刊介绍: Women"s Health Issues (WHI) is a peer-reviewed, bimonthly, multidisciplinary journal that publishes research and review manuscripts related to women"s health care and policy. As the official journal of the Jacobs Institute of Women"s Health, it is dedicated to improving the health and health care of all women throughout the lifespan and in diverse communities. The journal seeks to inform health services researchers, health care and public health professionals, social scientists, policymakers, and others concerned with women"s health.
×
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