无测试筛选方案可能不成比例地排除了结构上受压迫的社区,他们本可以从药物流产中受益。

IF 2.6 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Health Equity Pub Date : 2025-03-26 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1089/heq.2024.0128
M Antonia Biggs, Lauren Ralph, Katherine Ehrenreich, Shelly Kaller, Kelly Blanchard, Deb Hauser, Nathalie Kapp, Tammi Kromenaker, Ghazaleh Moayedi, Jamila Perritt, Elizabeth Raymond, Kari White, Daniel Grossman
{"title":"无测试筛选方案可能不成比例地排除了结构上受压迫的社区,他们本可以从药物流产中受益。","authors":"M Antonia Biggs, Lauren Ralph, Katherine Ehrenreich, Shelly Kaller, Kelly Blanchard, Deb Hauser, Nathalie Kapp, Tammi Kromenaker, Ghazaleh Moayedi, Jamila Perritt, Elizabeth Raymond, Kari White, Daniel Grossman","doi":"10.1089/heq.2024.0128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore disparities in ineligibility for medication abortion using no-test screening criteria compared with assessment with testing including ultrasound.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From June 2021 to December 2022, we surveyed patients ages ≥15 seeking abortion at nine recruitment facilities in eight U.S. states before ultrasound; clinicians assessed patients' eligibility for medication abortion with ultrasound and other testing. Using clinical guidelines and the no-test protocol criteria, we estimated (1) the proportion ineligible by no-test assessment (pregnancy duration and ectopic pregnancy risk factors as reported in patient surveys and clinician-reported assessment of other contraindications) and (2) the proportion ineligible using no-test criteria yet eligible with testing (false positives). We assessed associations between participant characteristics and ineligibility for medication abortion and reasons for ineligibility.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We approached 2,846 people, of whom 1,591 were eligible for the study. Of the 1,386 who consented and had complete clinician data, 21.1% (306/1,386) were ineligible with testing, 71.5% (<i>n</i> = 991/1,386) were ineligible using no-test criteria, and 51.4% (<i>n</i> = 713/1,386) screened false positive. In adjusted analyses, ineligibility using no-test criteria was significantly greater among people ages 15-19 (86.8% [105/121] vs. 71.5% for full sample, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and experiencing food or housing insecurity (75.8% [525/690] vs. 67.2%[464/693], <i>p</i> < 0.01); people ages 20-24 were more likely to screen false positive (56.1% [263/469] vs. 51.4% for full sample [713/1,386], <i>p</i> = 0.03). Moderate/severe pelvic pain was the most common (614/1,386) patient-reported reason for ineligibility and reported significantly more by people ages 15-19, who were nulliparous, and experienced food or housing insecurity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Screening criteria for no-test medication abortion may exclude many people who are eligible, disproportionately excluding certain population groups from getting the care they seek. More research is needed to improve screening criteria to ensure equitable access to no-test medication abortion.</p>","PeriodicalId":36602,"journal":{"name":"Health Equity","volume":"9 1","pages":"189-200"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12270530/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No-Test Screening Protocols May Disproportionately Exclude Structurally Oppressed Communities Who Could Benefit from Accessing Medication Abortion.\",\"authors\":\"M Antonia Biggs, Lauren Ralph, Katherine Ehrenreich, Shelly Kaller, Kelly Blanchard, Deb Hauser, Nathalie Kapp, Tammi Kromenaker, Ghazaleh Moayedi, Jamila Perritt, Elizabeth Raymond, Kari White, Daniel Grossman\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/heq.2024.0128\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore disparities in ineligibility for medication abortion using no-test screening criteria compared with assessment with testing including ultrasound.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From June 2021 to December 2022, we surveyed patients ages ≥15 seeking abortion at nine recruitment facilities in eight U.S. states before ultrasound; clinicians assessed patients' eligibility for medication abortion with ultrasound and other testing. Using clinical guidelines and the no-test protocol criteria, we estimated (1) the proportion ineligible by no-test assessment (pregnancy duration and ectopic pregnancy risk factors as reported in patient surveys and clinician-reported assessment of other contraindications) and (2) the proportion ineligible using no-test criteria yet eligible with testing (false positives). We assessed associations between participant characteristics and ineligibility for medication abortion and reasons for ineligibility.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We approached 2,846 people, of whom 1,591 were eligible for the study. Of the 1,386 who consented and had complete clinician data, 21.1% (306/1,386) were ineligible with testing, 71.5% (<i>n</i> = 991/1,386) were ineligible using no-test criteria, and 51.4% (<i>n</i> = 713/1,386) screened false positive. In adjusted analyses, ineligibility using no-test criteria was significantly greater among people ages 15-19 (86.8% [105/121] vs. 71.5% for full sample, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and experiencing food or housing insecurity (75.8% [525/690] vs. 67.2%[464/693], <i>p</i> < 0.01); people ages 20-24 were more likely to screen false positive (56.1% [263/469] vs. 51.4% for full sample [713/1,386], <i>p</i> = 0.03). Moderate/severe pelvic pain was the most common (614/1,386) patient-reported reason for ineligibility and reported significantly more by people ages 15-19, who were nulliparous, and experienced food or housing insecurity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Screening criteria for no-test medication abortion may exclude many people who are eligible, disproportionately excluding certain population groups from getting the care they seek. More research is needed to improve screening criteria to ensure equitable access to no-test medication abortion.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Equity\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"189-200\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12270530/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Equity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/heq.2024.0128\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Equity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/heq.2024.0128","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨无检查筛查标准在药物流产不适宜性方面的差异。方法:从2021年6月到2022年12月,我们调查了美国8个州的9个招募机构中年龄≥15岁的堕胎患者。临床医生通过超声和其他检查评估患者是否有资格进行药物流产。使用临床指南和无检测方案标准,我们估计(1)无检测评估不合格的比例(患者调查报告的妊娠期和异位妊娠危险因素以及临床报告的其他禁忌症评估)和(2)无检测标准不合格但检测合格的比例(假阳性)。我们评估了受试者特征与药物流产不合格及不合格原因之间的关系。结果:我们接触了2846人,其中1591人符合研究条件。在1,386名同意并拥有完整临床资料的患者中,21.1%(306/1,386)不符合检测标准,71.5% (n = 991/1,386)不符合无检测标准,51.4% (n = 713/1,386)筛查出假阳性。在调整分析中,15-19岁人群(86.8%[105/121]对全样本的71.5%,p < 0.001)和经历食物或住房不安全的人群(75.8%[525/690]对67.2%[464/693],p < 0.01)不符合无测试标准的人群显著增加;20-24岁人群更容易筛查出假阳性(56.1% [263/469]vs. 51.4%全样本[713/ 1386],p = 0.03)。中度/重度盆腔疼痛是最常见的(614/ 1386)患者报告的不合格原因,并且在15-19岁,未生育,经历过食物或住房不安全的人群中报告的比例明显更高。结论:无检测药物流产的筛选标准可能会将许多符合条件的人排除在外,不成比例地将某些人群排除在他们寻求的护理之外。需要更多的研究来改善筛查标准,以确保公平获得无检测药物流产。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
No-Test Screening Protocols May Disproportionately Exclude Structurally Oppressed Communities Who Could Benefit from Accessing Medication Abortion.

Objective: To explore disparities in ineligibility for medication abortion using no-test screening criteria compared with assessment with testing including ultrasound.

Methods: From June 2021 to December 2022, we surveyed patients ages ≥15 seeking abortion at nine recruitment facilities in eight U.S. states before ultrasound; clinicians assessed patients' eligibility for medication abortion with ultrasound and other testing. Using clinical guidelines and the no-test protocol criteria, we estimated (1) the proportion ineligible by no-test assessment (pregnancy duration and ectopic pregnancy risk factors as reported in patient surveys and clinician-reported assessment of other contraindications) and (2) the proportion ineligible using no-test criteria yet eligible with testing (false positives). We assessed associations between participant characteristics and ineligibility for medication abortion and reasons for ineligibility.

Results: We approached 2,846 people, of whom 1,591 were eligible for the study. Of the 1,386 who consented and had complete clinician data, 21.1% (306/1,386) were ineligible with testing, 71.5% (n = 991/1,386) were ineligible using no-test criteria, and 51.4% (n = 713/1,386) screened false positive. In adjusted analyses, ineligibility using no-test criteria was significantly greater among people ages 15-19 (86.8% [105/121] vs. 71.5% for full sample, p < 0.001) and experiencing food or housing insecurity (75.8% [525/690] vs. 67.2%[464/693], p < 0.01); people ages 20-24 were more likely to screen false positive (56.1% [263/469] vs. 51.4% for full sample [713/1,386], p = 0.03). Moderate/severe pelvic pain was the most common (614/1,386) patient-reported reason for ineligibility and reported significantly more by people ages 15-19, who were nulliparous, and experienced food or housing insecurity.

Conclusions: Screening criteria for no-test medication abortion may exclude many people who are eligible, disproportionately excluding certain population groups from getting the care they seek. More research is needed to improve screening criteria to ensure equitable access to no-test medication abortion.

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
Health Equity
Health Equity Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
97
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信