临床医生考虑离开和留在有堕胎禁令的州的原因

IF 2.3 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
W Arey, M Heisler, P Shah, L Green, T McHale
{"title":"临床医生考虑离开和留在有堕胎禁令的州的原因","authors":"W Arey,&nbsp;M Heisler,&nbsp;P Shah,&nbsp;L Green,&nbsp;T McHale","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>We aimed to examine clinicians’ decisions about whether to leave or continue to practice in states with abortion restrictions.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians providing care in Louisiana, Idaho, and Florida, after severely restrictive abortion policies went into effect from 2023 to 2024. In this secondary thematic analysis, we examined how these restrictions impacted clinicians’ thoughts about leaving states with bans.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The interview sample comprised 57 clinicians and trainees. The majority (n=32) had considered leaving the state, and 12 had plans to leave, including all of the trainees. Twenty-eight said they would more seriously consider leaving if the laws became more restrictive, or would never have moved to the state given the current laws. Cited reasons for leaving included: not being able to use their full range of skills, criminal charges, and moral distress of providing care under laws. However, nine who considered leaving had since committed to staying. Primary cited reasons for staying were: to not abandon patients or concern about what kind of care would be provided if they were not there, to advocate to change the laws, to maintain established family ties in the state, or having moved there intentionally to provide abortions.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Participants’ responses highlighted that decision-points like residency or a more restrictive law might be catalysts to decide to leave. Clinicians who worked in practices that experienced fewer impacts from abortion restrictions, had stronger family ties, or had more advocacy-focused goals were more likely to consider staying in states with restrictions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10762,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":"151 ","pages":"Article 111107"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"REASONS CLINICIANS CONSIDERED LEAVING AND STAYING IN STATES WITH ABORTION BANS\",\"authors\":\"W Arey,&nbsp;M Heisler,&nbsp;P Shah,&nbsp;L Green,&nbsp;T McHale\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111107\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>We aimed to examine clinicians’ decisions about whether to leave or continue to practice in states with abortion restrictions.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians providing care in Louisiana, Idaho, and Florida, after severely restrictive abortion policies went into effect from 2023 to 2024. In this secondary thematic analysis, we examined how these restrictions impacted clinicians’ thoughts about leaving states with bans.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The interview sample comprised 57 clinicians and trainees. The majority (n=32) had considered leaving the state, and 12 had plans to leave, including all of the trainees. Twenty-eight said they would more seriously consider leaving if the laws became more restrictive, or would never have moved to the state given the current laws. Cited reasons for leaving included: not being able to use their full range of skills, criminal charges, and moral distress of providing care under laws. However, nine who considered leaving had since committed to staying. Primary cited reasons for staying were: to not abandon patients or concern about what kind of care would be provided if they were not there, to advocate to change the laws, to maintain established family ties in the state, or having moved there intentionally to provide abortions.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Participants’ responses highlighted that decision-points like residency or a more restrictive law might be catalysts to decide to leave. Clinicians who worked in practices that experienced fewer impacts from abortion restrictions, had stronger family ties, or had more advocacy-focused goals were more likely to consider staying in states with restrictions.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10762,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contraception\",\"volume\":\"151 \",\"pages\":\"Article 111107\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-13\",\"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/S0010782425002987\",\"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/S0010782425002987","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们的目的是检查临床医生是否决定离开或继续在有堕胎限制的州执业。方法:在2023年至2024年严格限制堕胎政策生效后,我们对路易斯安那州、爱达荷州和佛罗里达州的临床医生进行了半结构化访谈。在这个次要主题分析中,我们研究了这些限制如何影响临床医生对离开禁令州的想法。结果访谈样本包括57名临床医生和实习生。大多数人(n=32)考虑过离开该州,12人计划离开,包括所有的实习生。28人表示,如果法律变得更加严格,他们会更认真地考虑离开,或者根据现行法律,他们永远不会搬到该州。离职的原因包括:不能充分发挥他们的技能,受到刑事指控,以及根据法律提供护理的道德困境。然而,有9名考虑过离开的人后来决定留下来。留下来的主要原因是:不要抛弃病人,或者担心如果他们不在那里会提供什么样的护理,倡导改变法律,维护在该州建立的家庭关系,或者故意搬到那里提供堕胎。参与者的反应突出表明,居住地或更严格的法律等决策点可能是决定离开的催化剂。在堕胎限制影响较小、家庭关系较强或有更多倡导目标的实践中工作的临床医生更有可能考虑留在有限制的州。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
REASONS CLINICIANS CONSIDERED LEAVING AND STAYING IN STATES WITH ABORTION BANS

Objectives

We aimed to examine clinicians’ decisions about whether to leave or continue to practice in states with abortion restrictions.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians providing care in Louisiana, Idaho, and Florida, after severely restrictive abortion policies went into effect from 2023 to 2024. In this secondary thematic analysis, we examined how these restrictions impacted clinicians’ thoughts about leaving states with bans.

Results

The interview sample comprised 57 clinicians and trainees. The majority (n=32) had considered leaving the state, and 12 had plans to leave, including all of the trainees. Twenty-eight said they would more seriously consider leaving if the laws became more restrictive, or would never have moved to the state given the current laws. Cited reasons for leaving included: not being able to use their full range of skills, criminal charges, and moral distress of providing care under laws. However, nine who considered leaving had since committed to staying. Primary cited reasons for staying were: to not abandon patients or concern about what kind of care would be provided if they were not there, to advocate to change the laws, to maintain established family ties in the state, or having moved there intentionally to provide abortions.

Conclusions

Participants’ responses highlighted that decision-points like residency or a more restrictive law might be catalysts to decide to leave. Clinicians who worked in practices that experienced fewer impacts from abortion restrictions, had stronger family ties, or had more advocacy-focused goals were more likely to consider staying in states with restrictions.
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
Contraception
Contraception 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
17.20%
发文量
211
审稿时长
69 days
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.
×
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