Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether indicators of limited access to services explained changes in rates of second-trimester abortion after implementation of a restrictive abortion law in Texas.MethodsWe used cross-sectional vital statistics data on abortions performed in Texas before (November 1, 2011-October 31, 2012) and after (November 1, 2013-October 31, 2014) implementation of Texas' abortion law. We conducted monthly mystery client calls for information about abortion facility closures and appointment wait times to calculate distance from women's county of residence to the nearest open Texas facility, the number of open abortion facilities in women's region of residence (facility network size), and days until the next consultation visit. We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models to assess the association between obtaining abortion care after the law's implementation and having a second-trimester abortion (12 weeks of gestation or more), after adjustment for distance, network size, and wait times.ResultsOverall, 64,902 Texas-resident abortions occurred in the period before the law was introduced and 53,174 occurred after its implementation. After implementation, 14.5% of abortions were performed at 12 weeks of gestation or more, compared with 10.5% before the law (P<.001; unadjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.45; 95% CI 1.40-1.50). Adjusting for distance to the nearest facility and facility network size reduced the odds of having a second-trimester abortion after implementation (OR 1.17; 95% CI 1.10-1.25). Women living 50-99 miles from the nearest facility (vs less than 10 miles) had higher odds of second-trimester abortion (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.11-1.39), as did women in regions with less than one facility per 250,000 reproductive-aged women compared with women in areas that had 1.5 or more facilities (OR 1.57; 95% CI 1.41-1.75). After implementation, women waited 1 to 14 days for a consultation visit; longer waits were associated with higher odds of second-trimester abortion.ConclusionIncreases in second-trimester abortion after the law's implementation were due to women having more limited access to abortion services.

Project description:Abortion is regulated in Mexico at the state level, and it is permitted under certain criteria in all 32 states, except in Mexico City where first-trimester abortion is decriminalized. Yet, more than a million abortions occur in Mexico each year. But most terminations occurring outside of Mexico City are clandestine and unsafe due to profound stigma against the procedure, lack of trained providers, lack of knowledge of where to find a safe abortion and poor knowledge of the laws. While this situation is moderated by the increasing use of misoprostol, a relatively safe method of abortion, the safety of the procedure cannot be assured in restrictive legal contexts. The purpose of this study is to explore women's experiences with induced abortion in three federal entities with different legal contexts, and whether abortion seeking behavior and experiences differ across these settings. The study was carried out in three states, representing three different degrees of restrictiveness of abortion legislation. Queretaro with the "most restrictive" law, Tabasco with a "moderately restrictive" law, and Mexico state with the "least restrictive" law. We hypothesize that women living in more restrictive states will resort to the use of more unsafe and risky methods and providers for their abortion than their counterparts in less restrictive states. Women who recently obtained abortions were selected through snowball sampling and qualitative data were collected from them using semi-structured indepth interviews. Data collection took place between mid-2014 and mid-2015, with a final sample size N = 60 (20 from each state). Various themes involved in the process of abortion seeking behavior were developed from the IDIs and examined here: women's knowledge of the abortion law in their state, reasons for having an abortion; the methods and providers used and women's positive and negative experiences with abortion methods and providers used. Our results indicate that abortion safety is not associated with the restrictiveness of abortion legislation. Findings show that there is a new pattern of abortion service provision in Mexico, with misoprostol, a relatively safe and easy to use method, playing an important role. Nevertheless, while access to misoprostol tends to increase the safety of abortion, the improvement is moderated by women and their informants (relatives, friends and partners) not having accurate information on how to safely self-induce an abortion with misoprostol. On the other hand, some women manage to have safe abortion in illegal setting by going to Mexico City or with the support of NGOs knowlegeable on abortion. Findings demonstrate the importance of decriminalization of abortion, but meanwhile, harm reduction strategies, including promotion of accurate information about self-use of misoprostol where abortion is legally restricted will result in safe abortion.

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective was to assess whether information about abortion safety and awareness of abortion laws affect voters' opinions about medically unnecessary abortion regulations.Study designBetween May and June 2016, we randomized 1200 Texas voters to receive or not receive information describing the safety of office-based abortion care during an online survey about abortion laws using simple random assignment. We compared the association between receiving safety information and awareness of recent restrictions and beliefs that ambulatory surgical center (ASC) requirements for abortion facilities and hospital admitting privileges requirements for physicians would make abortion safer. We used Poisson regression, adjusting for political affiliation and views on abortion.ResultsOf 1200 surveyed participants, 1183 had complete data for analysis: 612 in the information group and 571 in the comparison group. Overall, 259 (46%) in the information group and 298 (56%) in the comparison group believed that the ASC requirement would improve abortion safety (p=.008); 230 (41%) in the information group and 285 (54%) in the comparison group believed that admitting privileges would make abortion safer (p<.001). After multivariable adjustment, the information group was less likely to report that the ASC [prevalence ratio (PR): 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72-0.94] and admitting privileges requirements (PR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.65-0.88) would improve safety. Participants who identified as conservative Republicans were more likely to report that the ASC (82%) and admitting privileges requirements (83%) would make abortion safer if they had heard of the provisions than if they were unaware of them (ASC: 52%; admitting privileges: 47%; all p<.001).ConclusionsInformational statements reduced perceptions that restrictive laws make abortion safer. Voters' prior awareness of the requirements also was associated with their beliefs.ImplicationsInformational messages can shift scientifically unfounded views about abortion safety and could reduce support for restrictive laws. Because prior awareness of abortion laws does not ensure accurate knowledge about their effects on safety, it is important to reach a broad audience through early dissemination of information about new regulations.

Project description:Moral distress occurs when individuals feel powerless to do what they think is right, including when clinicians are prevented from providing health care they deem necessary. The loss of federal protections for abortion following the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision may place clinicians providing abortion at risk of experiencing moral distress, as many could face new legal and civil penalties for providing care in line with professional standards and that they perceive as necessary. To assess self-reported moral distress scores among abortion-providing clinicians following the Dobbs decision overall and by state-level abortion policy. This survey study, conducted from May to December 2023, included US abortion-providing clinicians (physicians, advanced practice clinicians, and nurses). A purposive electronic survey was disseminated nationally through professional listservs and snowball sampling. Abortion policy in each respondent's state of practice (restrictive vs protective using classifications from the Guttmacher Institute). Using descriptive statistics and unadjusted and adjusted negative binomial regression models, the association between self-reported moral distress on the Moral Distress Thermometer (MDT), a validated psychometric tool that scores moral distress from 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible), and state abortion policy was examined. Overall, 310 clinicians (271 [87.7%] women; mean [SD] age, 41.4 [9.7] years) completed 352 MDTs, with 206 responses (58.5%) from protective states and 146 (41.5%) from restrictive states. Reported moral distress scores ranged from 0 to 10 (median, 5) and were more than double for clinicians in restrictive compared with protective states (median, 8 [IQR, 6-9] vs 3 [IQR, 1-6]; P < .001). Respondents with higher moral distress scores included physicians compared with advanced practice clinicians (median, 6 [IQR, 3-8] vs 4 [IQR, 2-7]; P = .005), those practicing in free-standing abortion clinics compared with those practicing in hospitals (median, 6 [IQR, 3-8] vs 4 [IQR, 2-7]; P < .001), those no longer providing abortion care compared with those still providing abortion care (median, 8 [IQR, 4-9] vs 5 [IQR, 2-8]; P = .004), those practicing in loss states (states with the greatest decline in abortion volume since the Dobbs decision) compared with those in stable states (unadjusted incidence rate [IRR], 1.72 [95% CI, 1.55-1.92]; P < .001; adjusted IRR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.40-1.79]; P < .001), and those practicing in surge states (states with the greatest increase in abortion volume since the Dobbs decision) compared with those in stable states (unadjusted IRR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.11-1.46]; P < .001; adjusted IRR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.09-1.41]; P = .001). In this purposive national survey study of clinicians providing abortion, moral distress was elevated among all clinicians and more than twice as high among those practicing in states that restrict abortion compared with those in states that protect abortion. The findings suggest that structural changes addressing bans on necessary health care, such as federal protections for abortion, are needed at institutional, state, and federal policy levels to combat widespread moral distress.

Project description:PurposeResidency training environments can differ significantly; therefore, resident satisfaction may vary widely among programs. Here, we sought to examine several variables in program satisfaction through a survey of radiation oncology (RO) trainees in the United States.Methods and materialsAn anonymous, institutional review board-approved, internet-based survey was developed and distributed to U.S. residents in RO in September 2016. This email-based survey assessed program-specific factors with regard to workload, work-life balance, and education as well as resident-specific factors such as marital status and postgraduate year. Binomial multivariable regression assessed the correlations between these factors and the endpoint of resident-reported likelihood of selecting an alternative RO residency program if given the choice again.ResultsA total of 215 residents completed the required survey sections, representing 29.3% of U.S. RO residents. When asked whether residency allowed for an adequate balance between work and personal life, the majority of residents (75.6%) agreed or strongly agreed, but a minority (9.3%) did not feel that residency allowed for sufficient time for personal life. The majority of residents (69.7%) indicated that they would choose the same residency program again, but 12.2% would have made a different choice. Almost three-fourths of residents (73.0%) felt that faculty and staff cared about the educational success of residents, but 9.27% did not. Binomial multivariable regression revealed that senior residents (odds ratio: 6.70; 95% confidence interval, 2.20-22.4) were more likely to desire a different residency program. In contrast, residents who reported constructive feedback use by the residency program (odds ratio:0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.91) were more satisfied with their program choice.ConclusionsMost RO residents reported satisfaction with their choice of residency program, but seniors had higher rates of dissatisfaction. Possible interventions to improve professional satisfaction include incorporating constructive resident feedback to enhance the program. The potential impact of job market pressures on seniors should be further explored.

Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive surgery (MIS) requires intense education and training with structured supervision and feedback. However, a standardized training structure is lacking in Germany. This nationwide survey aimed to assess the current state of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) training and factors impacting surgeons' satisfaction.MethodsBetween July and October 2021, an online survey was conducted among general, abdominal, and thoracic surgeons in Germany. The survey collected data on department size, individual operative experience, availability of MIS training equipment and curricula, and individual satisfaction with training. A linear regression analysis was conducted to investigate factors influencing the surgeons' satisfaction with the MIS training.ResultsA total of 1008 surgeons participated in the survey, including residents (26.1%), fellows (14.6%), attendings (43.8%), and heads of departments (15.2%). Of the respondents, 57.4% reported having access to MIS training equipment, 29.8% and 26% had a curriculum for skills lab MIS training and intraoperative MIS training, respectively. In multivariate linear regression analysis, strongest predictors for surgeons' satisfaction with skills lab MIS training and intraoperative training were the availability of respective training curricula (skills lab: β 12.572; p < 0.001 & intraoperative: β 16.541; p < 0.001), and equipment (β 5.246; p = 0.012 & β 4.295; p = 0.037), and experience as a first surgeon in laparoscopy (β 12.572; p < 0.001 & β 3.748; p = 0.007). Additionally, trainees and teachers differed in their satisfaction factors.ConclusionGermany lacks standardized training curricula and sufficient access to MIS training equipment. Trainees and teachers have distinct factors influencing their satisfaction with MIS training. Standardized curricula, equipment accessibility, and surgical experience are crucial for improving surgeons' satisfaction with training.

Project description:ImportanceMost US individuals who access abortion care pay out of pocket due to insurance coverage restrictions on abortion. More research is needed on the financial and psychological burdens of abortion seeking, particularly for those traveling across state lines for care.ObjectivesTo estimate the proportion of patients seeking abortion who incur abortion-related catastrophic health expenditures (CHEs), assess whether CHE differs between those seeking care in state vs out of state, and examine the association of CHE with mental health symptoms.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study conducted before the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, surveys were administered between January and June 2019 among individuals aged 15 to 45 years seeking abortion in 4 clinics located in abortion-supportive states (California, Illinois, and New Mexico). Participants completed self-administered questionnaires while awaiting their abortion appointment. Analyses were conducted from November 2023 to April 2024.ExposureTravel for abortion care, categorized as either out of state or in state based on participants' state of residence and the clinic location.Main outcomes and measuresSelf-reported abortion care costs and additional non-health care costs (eg, transportation, accommodation, and missed work), which were considered catastrophic if they were 40% or greater of participants' ability to pay (defined as monthly income remaining after meeting subsistence needs). Multivariable regression analyses were conducted to examine associations between CHE, out-of-state travel for abortion care, and mental health symptoms including stress, anxiety, and depression.ResultsAmong the 675 participants included in the analytic sample, mean (SD) age was 27.33 (6.27) years; most were in their 20s (374 [55%]), and all but 196 (29%) sought abortion before or at 12 weeks' gestation. A total of 285 participants (42%) were estimated to incur abortion-related CHEs, which was associated with anxiety (APR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.07-1.19) and depression (APR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.12-1.39). Of people traveling from out of state (212 [31%]), more were likely to incur CHEs (138 [65%]) compared with those seeking care in state (147 of 463 [32%]) (APR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.67-3.00).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of US patients seeking abortion, many individuals and their households were estimated to incur CHEs, particularly those traveling from out of state. The financial and psychological burdens of abortion seeking have likely worsened after the Dobbs decision, as more people need to cross state lines to reach abortion care. The findings suggest expansion of insurance coverage to ensure equitable access to abortion care, irrespective of people's state of residence, is needed.

Dataset Information

Satisfaction With Abortion Training in an Abortion-Restrictive State

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets