R Schroeder, L Ralph, A Becker, S Kaller, MA Biggs
{"title":"2022 至 2023 年间全国代表性样本中有关堕胎安全的观念变化","authors":"R Schroeder, L Ralph, A Becker, S Kaller, MA Biggs","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110589","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>We aimed to estimate changes in beliefs about abortion safety among the US population assigned female at birth (AFAB) before and after <em>Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization</em>.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We administered two serial cross-sectional surveys to English- or Spanish-speaking members of a nationally-representative panel of AFAB respondents, ages 15-49, pre-<em>Dobbs</em> (December 2021/January 2022; n=6,943) and post-<em>Dobbs</em> (June/July 2023; n=3,533). We asked participants to indicate whether they agree (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree) “that it is usually safe for a pregnant person to end a pregnancy\", by (1) having an in-clinic abortion procedure; (2) using abortion pills obtained at a clinic or doctor’s office; and (3) using abortion pills obtained outside the formal healthcare system. Using weighted logistic regression models with year as the independent variable, we assessed changes in safety beliefs pre- to post-<em>Dobbs</em>, both overall and among subgroups.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Between 2022 and 2023, the proportion of respondents agreeing that each abortion method was “usually safe” increased: in-clinic procedure: 57.8% to 64.1% (p<0.001); in-clinic medication abortion: 52.2% to 59.6% (p<0.001); and pills obtained outside of the formal healthcare system: 7.4% to 9.6% (p<0.001). In stratified analyses, subgroups associated with increased endorsement of safety between years included respondents identifying as a Democrat, with no history of abortion, and who support in-clinic procedural abortion legality (p<0.05 for all abortion method outcomes).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>In a nationally representative sample, belief that abortion methods are safe increased between 2022 and 2023 despite increasing abortion restrictions and policies claiming abortion is unsafe. Still, public knowledge about abortion safety remains low.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10762,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CHANGES IN BELIEFS ABOUT ABORTION SAFETY IN A NATIONALLY REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE BETWEEN 2022 AND 2023\",\"authors\":\"R Schroeder, L Ralph, A Becker, S Kaller, MA Biggs\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110589\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>We aimed to estimate changes in beliefs about abortion safety among the US population assigned female at birth (AFAB) before and after <em>Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization</em>.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We administered two serial cross-sectional surveys to English- or Spanish-speaking members of a nationally-representative panel of AFAB respondents, ages 15-49, pre-<em>Dobbs</em> (December 2021/January 2022; n=6,943) and post-<em>Dobbs</em> (June/July 2023; n=3,533). We asked participants to indicate whether they agree (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree) “that it is usually safe for a pregnant person to end a pregnancy\\\", by (1) having an in-clinic abortion procedure; (2) using abortion pills obtained at a clinic or doctor’s office; and (3) using abortion pills obtained outside the formal healthcare system. Using weighted logistic regression models with year as the independent variable, we assessed changes in safety beliefs pre- to post-<em>Dobbs</em>, both overall and among subgroups.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Between 2022 and 2023, the proportion of respondents agreeing that each abortion method was “usually safe” increased: in-clinic procedure: 57.8% to 64.1% (p<0.001); in-clinic medication abortion: 52.2% to 59.6% (p<0.001); and pills obtained outside of the formal healthcare system: 7.4% to 9.6% (p<0.001). In stratified analyses, subgroups associated with increased endorsement of safety between years included respondents identifying as a Democrat, with no history of abortion, and who support in-clinic procedural abortion legality (p<0.05 for all abortion method outcomes).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>In a nationally representative sample, belief that abortion methods are safe increased between 2022 and 2023 despite increasing abortion restrictions and policies claiming abortion is unsafe. Still, public knowledge about abortion safety remains low.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10762,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contraception\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contraception\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782424002841\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contraception","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782424002841","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
CHANGES IN BELIEFS ABOUT ABORTION SAFETY IN A NATIONALLY REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE BETWEEN 2022 AND 2023
Objectives
We aimed to estimate changes in beliefs about abortion safety among the US population assigned female at birth (AFAB) before and after Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Methods
We administered two serial cross-sectional surveys to English- or Spanish-speaking members of a nationally-representative panel of AFAB respondents, ages 15-49, pre-Dobbs (December 2021/January 2022; n=6,943) and post-Dobbs (June/July 2023; n=3,533). We asked participants to indicate whether they agree (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree) “that it is usually safe for a pregnant person to end a pregnancy", by (1) having an in-clinic abortion procedure; (2) using abortion pills obtained at a clinic or doctor’s office; and (3) using abortion pills obtained outside the formal healthcare system. Using weighted logistic regression models with year as the independent variable, we assessed changes in safety beliefs pre- to post-Dobbs, both overall and among subgroups.
Results
Between 2022 and 2023, the proportion of respondents agreeing that each abortion method was “usually safe” increased: in-clinic procedure: 57.8% to 64.1% (p<0.001); in-clinic medication abortion: 52.2% to 59.6% (p<0.001); and pills obtained outside of the formal healthcare system: 7.4% to 9.6% (p<0.001). In stratified analyses, subgroups associated with increased endorsement of safety between years included respondents identifying as a Democrat, with no history of abortion, and who support in-clinic procedural abortion legality (p<0.05 for all abortion method outcomes).
Conclusions
In a nationally representative sample, belief that abortion methods are safe increased between 2022 and 2023 despite increasing abortion restrictions and policies claiming abortion is unsafe. Still, public knowledge about abortion safety remains low.
期刊介绍:
Contraception has an open access mirror journal Contraception: X, sharing the same aims and scope, editorial team, submission system and rigorous peer review.
The journal Contraception wishes to advance reproductive health through the rapid publication of the best and most interesting new scholarship regarding contraception and related fields such as abortion. The journal welcomes manuscripts from investigators working in the laboratory, clinical and social sciences, as well as public health and health professions education.