Dataset Information

Kentucky's abortion landscape, 2010 to 2019: an analysis of pre-Dobbs abortion disparities in a rural, restrictive state.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Since 2010, many US states have passed laws restricting abortion providers' ability to provide care. Such legislation has no demonstrated health benefits and creates inequitable barriers for patients.

Methods

To examine how Kentucky's abortion policies coincided with facility closures and abortion utilisation, we conducted a review of state abortion policies from 2010 to 2019 using newspapers and websites. We calculated abortion rates (abortions per 1000 women ages 15-44) by state of residence and provision for Kentucky, the South, and the US using data from the CDC and Kentucky Department of Health. We calculated percentages leaving and from out-of-state, and analysed abortions by race, pregnancy duration, and method.

Findings

Of 17 policies passed between 2010 and 2019, ten were enacted, including 20-week and telemedicine bans. One of Kentucky's two abortion facilities closed in 2017. The pooled average abortion rate in Kentucky (4.1) and for Kentuckians (5.8) was lower than national averages (11.8 and 11.1). An average of 38% of Kentuckians left their state for care, compared to 7% nationally. In 2019, the abortion rate in Kentucky was 5.8 times higher for Black patients than White patients (compared to 4.8 times nationally). The majority (62%) of abortions in Kentucky took place at 7-13 weeks' gestation.

Interpretation

Abortions in Kentucky were less frequent than in the South and US. The larger Black-White abortion rate gap reflects race- and class-based structural inequities in healthcare. Without federal protections, abortion access in Kentucky will continue waning.

Funding

This study was supported by a philanthropic foundation that makes grants anonymously.

SUBMITTER: Smith MH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9958464 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Kentucky's abortion landscape, 2010 to 2019: an analysis of pre-<i>Dobbs</i> abortion disparities in a rural, restrictive state.

Smith Mikaela H MH McGowan Michelle M Chakraborty Payal P Hood Robert B RB Field Meredith P MP Bessett Danielle D Norwood Carolette C Norris Alison H AH

Lancet regional health. Americas 20230215

<h4>Background</h4>Since 2010, many US states have passed laws restricting abortion providers' ability to provide care. Such legislation has no demonstrated health benefits and creates inequitable barriers for patients.<h4>Methods</h4>To examine how Kentucky's abortion policies coincided with facility closures and abortion utilisation, we conducted a review of state abortion policies from 2010 to 2019 using newspapers and websites. We calculated abortion rates (abortions per 1000 women ages 15-4 ...[more]

PMID: 36852333

Similar Datasets

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:ImportanceFollowing the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in June 2022, 17 US states have functionally banned abortion except in narrow circumstances, and physicians found in violation of these laws face felony charges, loss of their medical license, fines, and prison sentences. Patient impacts are being studied closely, but less research has focused on the consequences for obstetrician-gynecologists (OB-GYNs), for whom medically necessary care provision may now carry serious personal and professional consequences.ObjectiveTo characterize perceptions of the impact of abortion restrictions on clinical practice, moral distress, mental health, and turnover intention among US OB-GYNs practicing in states with functional bans on abortion.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study included semistructured, remote interviews with OB-GYNs from 13 US states with abortion bans. Volunteer sample of 54 OB-GYNs practicing in states that had banned abortion as of March 2023.ExposureState abortion bans enacted between June 2022 and March 2023.Main outcomes and measuresOB-GYNs' perceptions of clinical and personal impacts of abortion bans.ResultsThis study included 54 OB-GYNs (mean [SD] age, 42 [7] years; 44 [81%] female participants; 3 [6%] non-Hispanic Black or African American participants; 45 [83%] White participants) who practiced in general obstetrics and gynecology (39 [72%]), maternal-fetal medicine (7 [13%]), and complex family planning (8 [15%]). Two major domains were identified in which the laws affected OB-GYNs: (1) clinical impacts (eg, delays in care until patients became more sick or legal sign-off on a medical exception to the ban was obtained; restrictions on counseling patients on pregnancy options; inability to provide appropriate care oneself or make referrals for such care); and (2) personal impacts (eg, moral distress; fears and perceived consequences of law violation; intention to leave the state; symptoms of depression and anxiety).Conclusions and relevanceIn this qualitative study of OB-GYNs practicing under abortion bans, participants reported deep and pervasive impacts of state laws, with implications for workforce sustainability, physician health, and patient outcomes. In the context of public policies that restrict physicians' clinical autonomy, organization-level supports for physicians are essential to maintain workforce sustainability, clinician health and well-being, and availability of timely and accessible health care throughout the US.

Project description:BackgroundTelehealth abortion has taken on a vital role in maintaining abortion access since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision. However, little remains known about the landscape of new telehealth-only virtual clinic abortion providers that have expanded since telehealth abortion first became widely available in the United States in 2021.ObjectiveThis study aimed to (1) document the landscape of telehealth-only virtual clinic abortion care in the United States, (2) describe changes in the presence of virtual clinic abortion services between September 2022, following the Dobbs decision, and June 2023, and (3) identify structural factors that may perpetuate inequities in access to virtual clinic abortion care.MethodsWe conducted a repeated cross-sectional study by reviewing web search results and abortion directories to identify virtual abortion clinics in September 2022 and June 2023 and described changes in the presence of virtual clinics between these 2 periods. In June 2023, we also described each virtual clinic's policies, including states served, costs, patient age limits, insurance acceptance, financial assistance available, and gestational limits.ResultsWe documented 11 virtual clinics providing telehealth abortion care in 26 states and Washington DC in September 2022. By June 2023, 20 virtual clinics were providing services in 27 states and Washington DC. Most (n=16) offered care to minors, 8 provided care until 10 weeks of pregnancy, and median costs were US $259. In addition, 2 accepted private insurance and 1 accepted Medicaid, within a limited number of states. Most (n=16) had some form of financial assistance available.ConclusionsVirtual clinic abortion providers have proliferated since the Dobbs decision. We documented inequities in the availability of telehealth abortion care from virtual clinics, including age restrictions that exclude minors, gestational limits for care, and limited insurance and Medicaid acceptance. Notably, virtual clinic abortion care was not permitted in 11 states where in-person abortion is available.

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:ImportanceIn 2022, the US Supreme Court abolished the federal right to abortion in the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. In 13 states, abortions were immediately banned via previously passed legislation, known as trigger laws.ObjectiveTo estimate changes in anxiety and depression symptoms following the Dobbs decision among people residing in states with trigger laws compared with those without them.Design, setting, and participantsUsing the nationally representative repeated cross-sectional Household Pulse Survey (December 2021-January 2023), difference-in-differences models were estimated to examine the change in symptoms of depression and anxiety after Dobbs (either the June 24, 2022, Dobbs decision, or its May 2, 2022, leaked draft benchmarked to the baseline period, prior to May 2, 2022) by comparing the 13 trigger states with the 37 nontrigger states. Models were estimated for the full population (N = 718 753), and separately for 153 108 females and 102 581 males aged 18 through 45 years.ExposureResiding in states with trigger laws following the Dobbs decision or its leaked draft.Main outcomes and measuresAnxiety and depression symptoms were measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 ([PHQ-4]; range, 0-12; scores of more than 5 indicate elevated depression or anxiety symptoms; minimal important difference unknown).ResultsThe survey response rate was 6.04% overall, and 87% of respondents completed the PHQ-4. The population-weighted mean age was 48 years (SD, 17 years), and 51% were female. In trigger states, the mean PHQ-4 scores in the baseline period and after the Dobbs decision were 3.51 (95% CI, 3.44 to 3.59) and 3.81 (95% CI, 3.75 to 3.87), respectively, and in nontrigger states were 3.31 (95% CI, 3.27 to 3.34) and 3.49 (95% CI, 3.45 to 3.53), respectively. There was a significantly greater increase in the mean PHQ-4 score by 0.11 (95% CI, 0.06 to 0.16; P < .001) in trigger states vs nontrigger states. From baseline to after the draft was leaked, the change in PHQ-4 was not significantly different for those in trigger states vs nontrigger states (difference-in-differences estimate, 0.09; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.21; P = .15). From baseline to after the Dobbs opinion, there was a significantly greater increase in mean PHQ-4 scores for those in trigger states vs nontrigger states among females aged 18 through 45 years (difference-in-differences estimate, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.37; P = .002). Among males aged 18 through 45 years, the difference-in-differences estimate was not statistically significant (0.14; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.36; P = .23). Differences in estimates for males and females aged 18 through 45 were statistically significant (P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study of US survey data from December 2021 to January 2023, residence in states with abortion trigger laws compared with residence in states without such laws was associated with a small but significantly greater increase in anxiety and depression symptoms after the Dobbs decision.

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:ImportanceLittle is known about recent trends in rural-urban disparities in youth suicide, particularly sex- and method-specific changes. Documenting the extent of these disparities is critical for the development of policies and programs aimed at eliminating geographic disparities.ObjectiveTo examine trends in US suicide mortality for adolescents and young adults across the rural-urban continuum.Design, setting, and participantsLongitudinal trends in suicide rates by rural and urban areas between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2010, were analyzed using county-level national mortality data linked to a rural-urban continuum measure that classified all 3141 counties in the United States into distinct groups based on population size and adjacency to metropolitan areas. The population included all suicide decedents aged 10 to 24 years.Main outcomes and measuresRates of suicide per 100,000 persons.ResultsAcross the study period, 66,595 youths died by suicide, and rural suicide rates were nearly double those of urban areas for both males (19.93 and 10.31 per 100,000, respectively) and females (4.40 and 2.39 per 100,000, respectively). Even after controlling for a wide array of county-level variables, rural-urban suicide differentials increased over time for males, suggesting widening rural-urban disparities (1996-1998: adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.98; 2008-2010: adjusted IRR, 1.19; difference in IRR, P = .02). Firearm suicide rates declined, and the rates of hanging/suffocation for both males and females increased. However, the rates of suicide by firearm (males: 1996-1998, 2.05; and 2008-2010: 2.69 times higher) and hanging/suffocation (males: 1996-1998, 1.24; and 2008-2010: 1.63 times higher) were disproportionately higher in rural areas, and rural-urban differences increased over time (P = .002 for males; P = .06 for females).Conclusions and relevanceSuicide rates for adolescents and young adults are higher in rural than in urban communities regardless of the method used, and rural-urban disparities appear to be increasing over time. Further research should carefully explore the mechanisms whereby rural residence might increase suicide risk in youth and consider suicide-prevention efforts specific to rural settings.