患者对人工流产和流产护理提供者专业化的偏好。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Colleen Judge-Golden, Sydney Sheffield, Lucero Hernandez, Norma Davis, Rebecca Fairchild, Jonas J Swartz
{"title":"患者对人工流产和流产护理提供者专业化的偏好。","authors":"Colleen Judge-Golden, Sydney Sheffield, Lucero Hernandez, Norma Davis, Rebecca Fairchild, Jonas J Swartz","doi":"10.1089/jwh.2024.0884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Objectives:</i></b> Most induced abortions are provided by abortion specialists, despite knowledge and skills overlap with other disciplines, particularly general obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN). We evaluated patient preferences for abortion and miscarriage care from a family planning specialist versus other providers, and perceptions of a general OB/GYN's ability to provide safe miscarriage and abortion care. <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> We conducted a cross-sectional survey among individuals aged 18-44 receiving induced abortion (<i>n</i> = 54) or nonabortion gynecological care (<i>n</i> = 111) in North Carolina hospital-based gynecology or family planning clinics between April and October 2023. The primary predictor was appointment type. The primary outcome was preference for induced abortion from a family planning specialist versus other providers; secondary outcomes were provider specialty preference for miscarriage care and patient perceptions of a general OB/GYN's scope of practice. We evaluated associations between appointment type, outcomes, and participant characteristics. <b><i>Results:</i></b> This was a racially diverse population with half (50.3%) using public health insurance. Most (73.0%) felt abortion is \"morally acceptable and should be legal.\" Over half (53.1%) preferred induced abortion from a specialist provider, compared with one-third (32.7%) for miscarriage (<i>p</i> < 0.001), with no differences by appointment type. Educational attainment (<i>p</i> = 0.03) and Democratic party affiliation (<i>p</i> = 0.02) were independently associated with abortion specialist preference, but not significant in multivariable analysis. More participants believed a general OB/GYN can provide medications for miscarriage management compared with induced abortion (94.5% versus 86.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.01). Both medical and surgical first trimester induced abortions were more often identified as within-scope for a general OB/GYN than the ability to perform a hysterectomy (69.8%, <i>p</i> < 0.01). Most (78.8%) believed OB/GYNs should be required to train in abortion care. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Participants were more likely to prefer a family planning specialist for induced abortion care versus miscarriage; however, nearly half preferred nonspecialist care. Incorporation of induced abortion into general practice settings may meet patient preferences while expanding access.</p>","PeriodicalId":17636,"journal":{"name":"Journal of women's health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient Preferences for Provider Specialization for Induced Abortion and Miscarriage Care.\",\"authors\":\"Colleen Judge-Golden, Sydney Sheffield, Lucero Hernandez, Norma Davis, Rebecca Fairchild, Jonas J Swartz\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/jwh.2024.0884\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Objectives:</i></b> Most induced abortions are provided by abortion specialists, despite knowledge and skills overlap with other disciplines, particularly general obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN). We evaluated patient preferences for abortion and miscarriage care from a family planning specialist versus other providers, and perceptions of a general OB/GYN's ability to provide safe miscarriage and abortion care. <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> We conducted a cross-sectional survey among individuals aged 18-44 receiving induced abortion (<i>n</i> = 54) or nonabortion gynecological care (<i>n</i> = 111) in North Carolina hospital-based gynecology or family planning clinics between April and October 2023. The primary predictor was appointment type. The primary outcome was preference for induced abortion from a family planning specialist versus other providers; secondary outcomes were provider specialty preference for miscarriage care and patient perceptions of a general OB/GYN's scope of practice. We evaluated associations between appointment type, outcomes, and participant characteristics. <b><i>Results:</i></b> This was a racially diverse population with half (50.3%) using public health insurance. Most (73.0%) felt abortion is \\\"morally acceptable and should be legal.\\\" Over half (53.1%) preferred induced abortion from a specialist provider, compared with one-third (32.7%) for miscarriage (<i>p</i> < 0.001), with no differences by appointment type. Educational attainment (<i>p</i> = 0.03) and Democratic party affiliation (<i>p</i> = 0.02) were independently associated with abortion specialist preference, but not significant in multivariable analysis. More participants believed a general OB/GYN can provide medications for miscarriage management compared with induced abortion (94.5% versus 86.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.01). Both medical and surgical first trimester induced abortions were more often identified as within-scope for a general OB/GYN than the ability to perform a hysterectomy (69.8%, <i>p</i> < 0.01). Most (78.8%) believed OB/GYNs should be required to train in abortion care. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Participants were more likely to prefer a family planning specialist for induced abortion care versus miscarriage; however, nearly half preferred nonspecialist care. Incorporation of induced abortion into general practice settings may meet patient preferences while expanding access.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17636,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of women's health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of women's health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2024.0884\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of women's health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2024.0884","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:大多数人工流产是由人工流产专家提供的,尽管他们的知识和技能与其他学科重叠,特别是普通妇产科(OB/GYN)。我们评估了患者对计划生育专家与其他提供者提供的流产和流产护理的偏好,以及对普通妇产科医生提供安全流产和流产护理能力的看法。材料与方法:我们对2023年4月至10月期间在北卡罗来纳州医院妇科或计划生育诊所接受人工流产(n = 54)或非人工流产妇科护理(n = 111)的18-44岁个体进行了横断面调查。主要预测因子是预约类型。主要结果是计划生育专家比其他提供者更倾向于人工流产;次要结果是医生对流产护理的专业偏好和患者对普通妇产科医生执业范围的看法。我们评估了预约类型、结果和参与者特征之间的关联。结果:这是一个种族多样化的人群,其中一半(50.3%)使用公共医疗保险。大多数人(73.0%)认为堕胎“在道德上可以接受,应该是合法的”。超过一半(53.1%)的人倾向于从专科医生处进行人工流产,相比之下,三分之一(32.7%)的人倾向于流产(p < 0.001),预约类型没有差异。受教育程度(p = 0.03)和所属民主党(p = 0.02)与堕胎专家偏好有独立相关,但在多变量分析中不显著。与人工流产相比,更多的参与者认为普通妇产科医生可以提供药物治疗流产(94.5%比86.6%,p = 0.01)。内科和外科妊娠早期人工流产在普通妇产科医生的诊断范围内的比例高于子宫切除术的比例(69.8%,p < 0.01)。大多数(78.8%)认为应要求妇产科医生接受流产护理培训。结论:与流产相比,参与者更倾向于选择计划生育专家进行人工流产护理;然而,近一半的人更喜欢非专科护理。将人工流产纳入全科医疗设置可以满足患者的偏好,同时扩大获取途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patient Preferences for Provider Specialization for Induced Abortion and Miscarriage Care.

Objectives: Most induced abortions are provided by abortion specialists, despite knowledge and skills overlap with other disciplines, particularly general obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN). We evaluated patient preferences for abortion and miscarriage care from a family planning specialist versus other providers, and perceptions of a general OB/GYN's ability to provide safe miscarriage and abortion care. Materials and Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among individuals aged 18-44 receiving induced abortion (n = 54) or nonabortion gynecological care (n = 111) in North Carolina hospital-based gynecology or family planning clinics between April and October 2023. The primary predictor was appointment type. The primary outcome was preference for induced abortion from a family planning specialist versus other providers; secondary outcomes were provider specialty preference for miscarriage care and patient perceptions of a general OB/GYN's scope of practice. We evaluated associations between appointment type, outcomes, and participant characteristics. Results: This was a racially diverse population with half (50.3%) using public health insurance. Most (73.0%) felt abortion is "morally acceptable and should be legal." Over half (53.1%) preferred induced abortion from a specialist provider, compared with one-third (32.7%) for miscarriage (p < 0.001), with no differences by appointment type. Educational attainment (p = 0.03) and Democratic party affiliation (p = 0.02) were independently associated with abortion specialist preference, but not significant in multivariable analysis. More participants believed a general OB/GYN can provide medications for miscarriage management compared with induced abortion (94.5% versus 86.6%, p = 0.01). Both medical and surgical first trimester induced abortions were more often identified as within-scope for a general OB/GYN than the ability to perform a hysterectomy (69.8%, p < 0.01). Most (78.8%) believed OB/GYNs should be required to train in abortion care. Conclusions: Participants were more likely to prefer a family planning specialist for induced abortion care versus miscarriage; however, nearly half preferred nonspecialist care. Incorporation of induced abortion into general practice settings may meet patient preferences while expanding access.

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
Journal of women's health
Journal of women's health 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
5.70%
发文量
197
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Women''s Health is the primary source of information for meeting the challenges of providing optimal health care for women throughout their lifespan. The Journal delivers cutting-edge advancements in diagnostic procedures, therapeutic protocols for the management of diseases, and innovative research in gender-based biology that impacts patient care and treatment. Journal of Women’s Health coverage includes: -Internal Medicine Endocrinology- Cardiology- Oncology- Obstetrics/Gynecology- Urogynecology- Psychiatry- Neurology- Nutrition- Sex-Based Biology- Complementary Medicine- Sports Medicine- Surgery- Medical Education- Public Policy.
×
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