Dataset Information

Does information about abortion safety affect Texas voters' opinions about restrictive laws? A randomized study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:The objective was to assess whether information about abortion safety and awareness of abortion laws affect voters' opinions about medically unnecessary abortion regulations. STUDY DESIGN:Between 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. RESULTS:Of 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). CONCLUSIONS:Informational statements reduced perceptions that restrictive laws make abortion safer. Voters' prior awareness of the requirements also was associated with their beliefs. IMPLICATIONS:Informational 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.

SUBMITTER: White K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5670017 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does information about abortion safety affect Texas voters' opinions about restrictive laws? A randomized study.

White Kari K Grossman Daniel D Stevenson Amanda Jean AJ Hopkins Kristine K Potter Joseph E JE

Contraception 20170901 6

<h4>Objective</h4>The objective was to assess whether information about abortion safety and awareness of abortion laws affect voters' opinions about medically unnecessary abortion regulations.<h4>Study design</h4>Between 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 informati ...[more]

PMID: 28867442

Similar Datasets

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:ObjectiveTo examine factors associated with obtaining abortion at 12 or more weeks gestation in Texas after implementation of a restrictive law.Study designIn this retrospective cohort study, we collected data from eight Texas abortion clinics that provided services at 12 or more weeks gestation from April 1, 2015 to March 30, 2016, after a restrictive abortion law enacted in November 2013 shuttered many of the state's clinics. We examined factors associated with obtaining in-clinic abortion services between 3-11 versus 12-24 weeks gestation including patient race-ethnicity, income level, and driving distance to the clinic using chi-square tests and calculating odds ratios. We further subcategorized abortion between 15-24 weeks to determine who may be most affected by a Texas law banning dilation and evacuation (D&E).ResultsAmong 24,555 in-clinic abortions, 19.2% (n = 4,714) occurred at 12 or more weeks gestation. Compared to patients who obtained care between 3-11 weeks, those who obtained care at 12 or more weeks were more likely to be Black than White (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.05-1.31), live ≤110% of the federal poverty level than have higher income (OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.94-2.26), and drive 50+ miles than 1-24 miles to obtain care (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.15-1.38). These associations remained for those obtaining care between 15-24 weeks. Even after adjusting for race-ethnicity and driving distance, low-income patients had greater odds of obtaining care in between 15-24 weeks (aOR 1.52; 95% CI 1.21-1.91).ConclusionsPatients obtaining abortion at 12 or more weeks gestation in Texas are more likely to be Black, low-income, and travel far distances to obtain in-clinic care.ImplicationsIn Texas, patients who are Black, low-income, and travel the farthest are more likely to obtain in-clinic abortion between 15-24 weeks gestation, commonly performed via D&E. If Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB8) banning D&E goes into effect, these patients may be prevented from obtaining care.

Project description:BackgroundSecond medical opinions have become commonplace and even mandatory in some health-care systems, as variations in diagnosis, treatment or prognosis may emerge among physicians.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether physicians' judgment is affected by another medical opinion given to a patient.DesignOrthopedic surgeons and neurologists filled out questionnaires presenting eight hypothetical clinical scenarios with suggested treatments. One group of physicians (in each specialty) was told what the other physician's opinion was (study group), and the other group was not told what it was (control group).ParticipantsA convenience sample of 332 physicians in Israel: 172 orthopedic surgeons (45.9% of their population) and 160 neurologists (64.0% of their population).MeasurementsScoring was by choice of less or more interventional treatment in the scenarios. We used ?(2) tests and repeated measures ANOVA to compare these scores between the two groups. We also fitted a cumulative ordinal regression to account for the dependence within each physician's responses.ResultsOrthopedic surgeons in the study group chose a more interventionist treatment when the other physician suggested an intervention than those in the control group [F (1, 170)?=4.6, p=0.03; OR=1.437, 95% CI 1.115-1.852]. Evaluating this effect separately in each scenario showed that in four out of the eight scenarios, they chose a more interventional treatment when the other physician suggested an intervention (scenario 1, p=0.039; scenario 2, p<0.001; scenario 3, p=0.033; scenario 6, p<0.001). These effects were insignificant among the neurologists [F (1,158)?=0.44, p=0.51; OR=1.087, 95% CI 0.811-1.458]. In both specialties there were no differences in responses by level of clinical experience [orthopedic surgeons: F (2, 166)?=0.752, p=0.473; neurologists: F (2,154)?=1.951, p=0.146].ConclusionsThe exploratory survey showed that in some cases physicians' judgments may be affected by other physicians' opinions, but unaffected in other cases. Weighing previous opinions may yield a more informed clinical decision, yet physicians may be unintentionally influenced by previous opinions. Second opinion has the potential to improve the clinical decision-making processes, and mechanisms are needed to reconcile discrepant opinions.

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.

Dataset Information

Does information about abortion safety affect Texas voters' opinions about restrictive laws? A randomized study.

Publications

Does information about abortion safety affect Texas voters' opinions about restrictive laws? A randomized study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets