残疾状况下的生殖保健不平等:与提供者的经验和护理障碍。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Margaret Brace, Linda Copel, Amy McKeever, Suzanne C Smeltzer
{"title":"残疾状况下的生殖保健不平等:与提供者的经验和护理障碍。","authors":"Margaret Brace, Linda Copel, Amy McKeever, Suzanne C Smeltzer","doi":"10.1002/nur.22455","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The literature has documented that many women with disability (WWD) report barriers to obtaining reproductive health care as well as poor experiences with providers when care is received. This project sought to compare barriers and experiences in reproductive health care for WWD to those of women without disability in the United States. Using representative data from the National Survey of Family Growth (2017-2019), we present weighted estimates of poor or fair experiences with providers by disability status, as well as weighted estimates of the proportion of women reporting types of barriers to services by disability status, among individuals identifying as women between the ages of 15 and 49. We then used weighted logistic regressions to compare barriers and experiences with providers by disability status. After controlling for potential confounders, women with any disability had 2.6 times higher odds as women without disability to rate their providers' respect for them as \"poor\" or \"fair\" (95% CI: 1.1-6.2). WWD did not significantly differ from women without disability in whether they reported more than one type of barrier (AOR = 1.3, 95% CI: 0.8-2.1), yet WWD had higher odds of reporting financial barriers compared to women without disability (AOR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.02-2.2). While access to reproductive health care and experience with providers needs to be improved for all, these findings suggest that targeted efforts are needed to eliminate inequities for WWD in the reproductive health care system.</p>","PeriodicalId":54492,"journal":{"name":"Research in Nursing & Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reproductive Health Care Inequities by Disability Status: Experiences With Providers and Barriers to Care.\",\"authors\":\"Margaret Brace, Linda Copel, Amy McKeever, Suzanne C Smeltzer\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/nur.22455\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The literature has documented that many women with disability (WWD) report barriers to obtaining reproductive health care as well as poor experiences with providers when care is received. This project sought to compare barriers and experiences in reproductive health care for WWD to those of women without disability in the United States. Using representative data from the National Survey of Family Growth (2017-2019), we present weighted estimates of poor or fair experiences with providers by disability status, as well as weighted estimates of the proportion of women reporting types of barriers to services by disability status, among individuals identifying as women between the ages of 15 and 49. We then used weighted logistic regressions to compare barriers and experiences with providers by disability status. After controlling for potential confounders, women with any disability had 2.6 times higher odds as women without disability to rate their providers' respect for them as \\\"poor\\\" or \\\"fair\\\" (95% CI: 1.1-6.2). WWD did not significantly differ from women without disability in whether they reported more than one type of barrier (AOR = 1.3, 95% CI: 0.8-2.1), yet WWD had higher odds of reporting financial barriers compared to women without disability (AOR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.02-2.2). While access to reproductive health care and experience with providers needs to be improved for all, these findings suggest that targeted efforts are needed to eliminate inequities for WWD in the reproductive health care system.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54492,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in Nursing & Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in Nursing & Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22455\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Nursing & Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22455","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

文献记载,许多残疾妇女报告在获得生殖保健方面存在障碍,并且在接受护理时与提供者的接触经历不佳。该项目力求将妇女残疾与美国无残疾妇女在生殖保健方面的障碍和经验进行比较。利用全国家庭增长调查(2017-2019)的代表性数据,我们按残疾状况对服务提供者的不良或公平经历进行了加权估计,并按残疾状况对15至49岁女性中报告服务障碍类型的女性比例进行了加权估计。然后,我们使用加权逻辑回归来比较障碍和经验与残疾状况的提供者。在控制了潜在的混杂因素后,有残疾的女性比没有残疾的女性有2.6倍的几率将他们的提供者对他们的尊重评为“差”或“公平”(95%置信区间:1.1-6.2)。在是否报告一种以上的障碍方面,女性残疾患者与无残疾女性没有显著差异(AOR = 1.3, 95% CI: 0.8-2.1),但与无残疾女性相比,女性残疾患者报告经济障碍的几率更高(AOR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.02-2.2)。虽然需要改善所有人获得生殖保健的机会和与提供者的经验,但这些发现表明,需要有针对性的努力,以消除生殖保健系统中对世界妇女日的不平等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reproductive Health Care Inequities by Disability Status: Experiences With Providers and Barriers to Care.

The literature has documented that many women with disability (WWD) report barriers to obtaining reproductive health care as well as poor experiences with providers when care is received. This project sought to compare barriers and experiences in reproductive health care for WWD to those of women without disability in the United States. Using representative data from the National Survey of Family Growth (2017-2019), we present weighted estimates of poor or fair experiences with providers by disability status, as well as weighted estimates of the proportion of women reporting types of barriers to services by disability status, among individuals identifying as women between the ages of 15 and 49. We then used weighted logistic regressions to compare barriers and experiences with providers by disability status. After controlling for potential confounders, women with any disability had 2.6 times higher odds as women without disability to rate their providers' respect for them as "poor" or "fair" (95% CI: 1.1-6.2). WWD did not significantly differ from women without disability in whether they reported more than one type of barrier (AOR = 1.3, 95% CI: 0.8-2.1), yet WWD had higher odds of reporting financial barriers compared to women without disability (AOR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.02-2.2). While access to reproductive health care and experience with providers needs to be improved for all, these findings suggest that targeted efforts are needed to eliminate inequities for WWD in the reproductive health care system.

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
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Research in Nursing & Health ( RINAH ) is a peer-reviewed general research journal devoted to publication of a wide range of research that will inform the practice of nursing and other health disciplines. The editors invite reports of research describing problems and testing interventions related to health phenomena, health care and self-care, clinical organization and administration; and the testing of research findings in practice. Research protocols are considered if funded in a peer-reviewed process by an agency external to the authors’ home institution and if the work is in progress. Papers on research methods and techniques are appropriate if they go beyond what is already generally available in the literature and include description of successful use of the method. Theory papers are accepted if each proposition is supported by research evidence. Systematic reviews of the literature are reviewed if PRISMA guidelines are followed. Letters to the editor commenting on published articles are welcome.
×
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