"我没想到会问这个问题":大学生健康中心对人工流产转介请求的回应。

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Priyanka Anand MD , Licia Bravo BS , Sarah Gutman MD, MSPH , Arden McAllister MPH , Shimrit Keddem PhD , Sarita Sonalkar MD, MPH
{"title":"\"我没想到会问这个问题\":大学生健康中心对人工流产转介请求的回应。","authors":"Priyanka Anand MD ,&nbsp;Licia Bravo BS ,&nbsp;Sarah Gutman MD, MSPH ,&nbsp;Arden McAllister MPH ,&nbsp;Shimrit Keddem PhD ,&nbsp;Sarita Sonalkar MD, MPH","doi":"10.1016/j.whi.2023.12.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Women 18–24 years of age have the highest proportion of unintended pregnancies of any age group, and thus represent a significant population in need of abortion services. Prior research indicated that only half of college student health centers provide appropriate abortion referrals. Our objective was to better understand the referral experience and barriers to abortion referral at college student health centers.</p></div><div><h3>Procedures</h3><p>We conducted a “secret caller” study at all 4-year colleges in Pennsylvania between June 2017 and April 2018, using a structured script requesting abortion referral. Calls were transcribed, coded using an iteratively developed codebook, and analyzed for themes related to barriers and facilitators of abortion referral.</p></div><div><h3>Main Findings</h3><p>A total of 202 completed transcripts were reviewed. Themes that emerged were knowledge, experience, and comfort with abortion referral; support, empathy, and reassurance<span><span>; coercion; misleading language; questioning the caller's </span>autonomy; and institutional policy against referral. Most staff lacked knowledge and comfort with abortion referral. Although some staff members made supportive statements toward the caller, others used coercive language to try to dissuade the caller from an abortion. Many staff cited religious institutional policies against abortion referral and expressed a range of feelings about such policies.</span></p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Abortion referrals at student health centers lack consistency. Staff members frequently did not have the knowledge needed to provide appropriate abortion referrals, used coercive language in responding to requests for referrals, and perpetuated abortion stigma. Some health staff used coercive or evasive language that further stigmatized the caller's request for an abortion referral. College health centers should improve training and resources around abortion referral to ensure they are delivering appropriate, high-quality care.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48039,"journal":{"name":"Womens Health Issues","volume":"34 2","pages":"Pages 148-155"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“I Wasn't Expecting That Question”: Responses to Requests for Abortion Referral at College Student Health Centers\",\"authors\":\"Priyanka Anand MD ,&nbsp;Licia Bravo BS ,&nbsp;Sarah Gutman MD, MSPH ,&nbsp;Arden McAllister MPH ,&nbsp;Shimrit Keddem PhD ,&nbsp;Sarita Sonalkar MD, MPH\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.whi.2023.12.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Women 18–24 years of age have the highest proportion of unintended pregnancies of any age group, and thus represent a significant population in need of abortion services. Prior research indicated that only half of college student health centers provide appropriate abortion referrals. Our objective was to better understand the referral experience and barriers to abortion referral at college student health centers.</p></div><div><h3>Procedures</h3><p>We conducted a “secret caller” study at all 4-year colleges in Pennsylvania between June 2017 and April 2018, using a structured script requesting abortion referral. Calls were transcribed, coded using an iteratively developed codebook, and analyzed for themes related to barriers and facilitators of abortion referral.</p></div><div><h3>Main Findings</h3><p>A total of 202 completed transcripts were reviewed. Themes that emerged were knowledge, experience, and comfort with abortion referral; support, empathy, and reassurance<span><span>; coercion; misleading language; questioning the caller's </span>autonomy; and institutional policy against referral. Most staff lacked knowledge and comfort with abortion referral. Although some staff members made supportive statements toward the caller, others used coercive language to try to dissuade the caller from an abortion. Many staff cited religious institutional policies against abortion referral and expressed a range of feelings about such policies.</span></p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Abortion referrals at student health centers lack consistency. Staff members frequently did not have the knowledge needed to provide appropriate abortion referrals, used coercive language in responding to requests for referrals, and perpetuated abortion stigma. Some health staff used coercive or evasive language that further stigmatized the caller's request for an abortion referral. College health centers should improve training and resources around abortion referral to ensure they are delivering appropriate, high-quality care.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48039,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Womens Health Issues\",\"volume\":\"34 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 148-155\"},\"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/S1049386723002141\",\"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/S1049386723002141","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

背景:在所有年龄组中,18-24 岁女性意外怀孕的比例最高,因此是需要人工流产服务的重要人群。先前的研究表明,只有一半的大学生健康中心提供适当的人工流产转介服务。我们的目标是更好地了解大学生健康中心的转诊经验和人工流产转诊的障碍:2017 年 6 月至 2018 年 4 月期间,我们在宾夕法尼亚州的所有四年制大学开展了一项 "秘密来电 "研究,使用结构化脚本要求进行人工流产转介。我们对通话进行了转录,使用迭代开发的编码手册进行编码,并分析了与人工流产转介的障碍和促进因素相关的主题:共审查了 202 份完整的记录誊本。出现的主题包括对人工流产转介的了解、经验和舒适度;支持、同情和保证;胁迫;误导性语言;质疑来电者的自主权;以及反对转介的机构政策。大多数工作人员对人工流产转介缺乏了解,也不熟悉。虽然一些工作人员对来电者表示支持,但其他工作人员则使用胁迫性语言试图劝阻来电者不要堕胎。许多工作人员援引了反对堕胎转介的宗教机构政策,并表达了对此类政策的不同感受:学生健康中心的堕胎转介缺乏一致性。工作人员经常不具备提供适当人工流产转介所需的知识,在回应转介请求时使用胁迫性语言,并使人工流产污名化永久化。一些保健工作人员使用胁迫性或回避性语言,进一步污名化了来电者的堕胎转介请求。学院保健中心应改善有关堕胎转介的培训和资源,以确保他们提供适当、高质量的护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“I Wasn't Expecting That Question”: Responses to Requests for Abortion Referral at College Student Health Centers

Background

Women 18–24 years of age have the highest proportion of unintended pregnancies of any age group, and thus represent a significant population in need of abortion services. Prior research indicated that only half of college student health centers provide appropriate abortion referrals. Our objective was to better understand the referral experience and barriers to abortion referral at college student health centers.

Procedures

We conducted a “secret caller” study at all 4-year colleges in Pennsylvania between June 2017 and April 2018, using a structured script requesting abortion referral. Calls were transcribed, coded using an iteratively developed codebook, and analyzed for themes related to barriers and facilitators of abortion referral.

Main Findings

A total of 202 completed transcripts were reviewed. Themes that emerged were knowledge, experience, and comfort with abortion referral; support, empathy, and reassurance; coercion; misleading language; questioning the caller's autonomy; and institutional policy against referral. Most staff lacked knowledge and comfort with abortion referral. Although some staff members made supportive statements toward the caller, others used coercive language to try to dissuade the caller from an abortion. Many staff cited religious institutional policies against abortion referral and expressed a range of feelings about such policies.

Conclusions

Abortion referrals at student health centers lack consistency. Staff members frequently did not have the knowledge needed to provide appropriate abortion referrals, used coercive language in responding to requests for referrals, and perpetuated abortion stigma. Some health staff used coercive or evasive language that further stigmatized the caller's request for an abortion referral. College health centers should improve training and resources around abortion referral to ensure they are delivering appropriate, high-quality care.

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