Sự Cân Nhắc và Lý Do Không Thực Hiện Nạo Phá Thai Ở Phụ Nữ Tham Gia Chăm Sóc Thai Kỳ Tại Nam Louisiana và Baltimore, Maryland

Sexuality Research & Social Policy - Tập 16 - Trang 476-487 - 2018
Sarah C. M. Roberts1, Katrina Kimport1, Rebecca Kriz1, Jennifer Holl1, Katrina Mark2, Valerie Williams3
1Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, Oakland, USA
2Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans, New Orleans, USA

Tóm tắt

Hầu hết các nghiên cứu về trải nghiệm xem xét và tìm kiếm nạo phá thai đến từ những phụ nữ đến các phòng khám nạo phá thai. Nghiên cứu này khảo sát trải nghiệm của phụ nữ tham gia chăm sóc thai kỳ. Năm trăm tám mươi chín phụ nữ đã được tuyển chọn tại buổi khám thai đầu tiên của họ ở Nam Louisiana và Baltimore, Maryland. Những người tham gia đã hoàn thành khảo sát tự làm trên iPad và cuộc phỏng vấn có cấu trúc tại phòng khám. Những người tham gia được hỏi liệu họ có xem xét nạo phá thai cho thai kỳ này hay không và nếu có, lý do họ không thực hiện. Hai mươi tám phần trăm ở Louisiana và 34% ở Maryland đã xem xét nạo phá thai. Mười phần trăm ở Louisiana và 13% ở Maryland đã gọi đến phòng khám nạo phá thai; 2% ở Louisiana và 3% ở Maryland đã tới phòng khám nạo phá thai. Lý do phổ biến nhất cho việc không thực hiện nạo phá thai liên quan đến quyết định của chính phụ nữ, tức là sở thích cá nhân của họ. Các lý do liên quan đến chính sách ít phổ biến hơn; nhưng nhiều người tham gia đã xem xét nạo phá thai ở Louisiana hơn Maryland báo cáo lý do liên quan đến chính sách (chủ yếu là thiếu kinh phí cho việc nạo phá thai) như một lý do (22% Louisiana, 2% Maryland, p < 0.001). Việc tuyển dụng trong chăm sóc thai kỳ là một cách khả thi để tìm phụ nữ đã xem xét nhưng không thực hiện nạo phá thai cho thai kỳ hiện tại của họ. Sở thích cá nhân của phụ nữ là lý do chính cho việc không thực hiện nạo phá thai ở tất cả các địa điểm, nhưng nhiều hơn ở Louisiana hơn Maryland phải đối mặt với những rào cản liên quan đến chính sách trong việc nạo phá thai.

Từ khóa

#nạo phá thai #chăm sóc thai kỳ #quyết định #Louisiana #Maryland #chính sách #phụ nữ

Tài liệu tham khảo

ANSIRH. (2017). Abortion facility database. San Francisco: University of California. Barrett, G., Smith, S. C., & Wellings, K. (2004). Conceptualisation, development, and evaluation of a measure of unplanned pregnancy. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58(5), 426–433. Biggs, M. A., Gould, H., & Foster, D. G. (2013). Understanding why women seek abortions in the US. BMC Women’s Health, 13, 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-13-29. Biggs, M. A., Upadhyay, U. D., McCulloch, C. E., & Foster, D. G. (2017). Women’s mental health and well-being 5 years after receiving or being denied an abortion: A prospective, longitudinal cohort study. JAMA Psychiatry, 74(2), 169–178. Burns, B., Dennis, A., & Douglas-Durham, E. (2014). Retrieved Dec 31, 2014 from Evaluating priorities: Measuring women’s and children’s health and well-being against abortion restrictions in the states. https://ibisreproductivehealth.org/publications/evaluating-priorities-measuring-womens-and-childrens-health-and-well-being-against-0. California Department of Health Care Services (n.d.). Stable resource toolkit: AUDIT-C -Overview. http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/medi-cal/Documents/tool_auditc.pdf. Accessed September 4, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/medi-cal/Documents/tool_auditc.pdf. Cameron, S. T., & Glasier, A. (2013). Identifying women in need of further discussion about the decision to have an abortion and eventual outcome. Contraception, 88(1), 128–132. Colman, S., & Joyce, T. (2009). Minors’ behavioral responses to parental involvement laws: Delaying abortion until age 18. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 41(2), 119–126. Cook, P. J., Parnell, A. M., Moore, M. J., & Pagnini, D. (1999). The effects of short-term variation in abortion funding on pregnancy outcomes. Journal of Health Economics, 18(2), 241–257. Dennis, A., Henshaw, S., Joyce, T., Finer, L., & Blanchard, K. (2009). The impact of laws requiring parental involvement for abortion: A literature review (p. 2009). New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute. DePineres, T., Raifman, S., Mora, M., Villarreal, C., Foster, D. G., & Gerdts, C. (2017). ‘I felt the world crash down on me’: Women’s experiences being denied legal abortion in Colombia. Reproductive Health, 14(1), 133. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-017-0391-5. Dobkin, L., Gould, H., Barar, R., Ferrari, M., Weiss, E., & DG, F. (2014). Implementing a prospective study of women seeking abortion in the United States: Understanding and overcoming barriers to recruitment. Womens Health Issues, 24(1), e115–e123. Finer, L. B., & Kost, K. (2011). Unintended pregnancy rates at the state level. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 43(2), 78–87. Foster, D. G., Biggs, M. A., Ralph, L., Gerdts, C., Roberts, S., & Glymour, M. M. (2018). Socioeconomic outcomes of women who receive and women who are denied wanted abortions in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 108(3), 407–413. Fuentes, L., Lebenkoff, S., White, K., Gerdts, C., Hopkins, K., Potter, J. E., & Grossman, D. (2016). Women’s experiences seeking abortion care shortly after the closure of clinics due to a restrictive law in Texas. Contraception, 93(4), 292–297. Gatter, M., Kimport, K., Foster, D. G., Weitz, T. A., & Upadhyay, U. D. (2014). Relationship between ultrasound viewing and proceeding to abortion. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 123(1), 81–87. Gerdts, C., Fuentes, L., Grossman, D., White, K., Keefe-Oates, B., Baum, S. E., … Potter, J. E. (2016). Impact of clinic closures on women obtaining abortion services after implementation of a restrictive law in Texas. American Journal of Public Health, 106(5), 857–864. doi:https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303134. Glenza, J. (2014). Louisiana’s restrictive abortion law blocked by federal judge. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/01/louisiana-abortion-law-admitting-privileges. Grossman, D., Holt, K., Pena, M., Lara, D., Veatch, M., Cordova, D., … Blanchard, K. (2010). Self-induction of abortion among women in the United States. Reproductive Health Matters, 18(36), 136–146. Guttmacher Institute. (2014). State policies in brief: Targeted regulation of abortion providers. https://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_TRAP.pdf. Guttmacher Institute. (2015). State policies in brief: State funding of abortion under Medicaid. http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SFAM.pdf. Guttmacher Institute. (2018a). State facts about abortion: Louisiana. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-louisiana Guttmacher Institute. (2018b). State facts about abortion: Maryland. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-maryland. Hajri, S., Raifman, S., Gerdts, C., Baum, S., & Foster, D. G. (2015). ‘This is real misery’: Experiences of women denied legal abortion in Tunisia. PLoS One, 10(12), e0145338. Henshaw, S. K., Joyce, T. J., Dennis, A., Finer, L. B., & Blanchard, K. (2009). Restrictions on Medicaid funding for abortions: A literature review. New York: Guttmacher Institute. Huntington, D., Mensch, B., & Toubia, N. (1993). A new approach to eliciting information about induced abortion. Studies in Family Planning, 24(2), 120–124. Jacob, A. (2017). The University of Maryland’s nearest Planned Parenthood is closing next week. The diamondback. Retrieved March 29, 2018 from: http://www.dbknews.com/2017/03/08/planned-parenthood-silver-spring-closing/ . Jagannathan, R. (2001). Relying on surveys to understand abortion behavior: Some cautionary evidence. American Journal of Public Health, 91(11), 1825–1831. Jerman, J., Jones, R. K., & Onda, T. (2016). Characteristics of U.S. abortion patients in 2014 and changes since 2008. Retrieved from New York: https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2014.pdf. Jerman, J., Onda, T., & Jones, R. K. (2018). What are people looking for when they google “self-abortion”? Contraception, 97, 510–514. Jones, R. K. (2011). How commonly do US abortion patients report attempts to self-induce? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 204(1), 23.e21–223.e4. Joyce, T., Henshaw, S., Dennis, A., Finer, B., & Blanchard, K. ( 2009). The impact of state mandatory counseling and waiting period laws on abortion: A literature review. Retrieved from New York: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/MandatoryCounseling.pdf. Joyce, T., Henshaw, S., & Skatrud, J. (1997). The impact of Mississippi’s mandatory delay law on abortions and births. JAMA, 278(8), 653–658. Karasek, D., Roberts, S. C. M., & Weitz, T. A. (2016). Abortion patients’ experience and perceptions of waiting periods: Survey evidence before Arizona’s two-visit 24-hour mandatory waiting period law. Women’s Health Issues, 26(1), 60–66. McConnaughey, J. (2017). Judge strikes down Louisiana abortion law: Unconstitutional. Shreveport times. Retrieved from http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/local/louisiana/2017/04/27/judge-strikes-down-louisiana-abortion-law-unconstitutional/100967966/. Nash, E., Gold, R. B., Mohammed, L., Ansari-Thomas, Z., & Cappello, O. (2018). Policy trends in the States, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2018/01/policy-trends-states-2017. O’Connor, A. M. (1993 [Updated 2010]). User manual - Decisional conflict scale (16 item statement format). http://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/develop/User_Manuals/UM_Decisional_Conflict.pdf. Purcell, C., Cameron, S., Caird, L., Flett, G., Laird, G., Melville, C., & McDaid, L. M. (2014). Access to and experience of later abortion: Accounts from women in Scotland. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 46(2), 101–108. Puri, M., Vohra, D., Gerdts, C., & Foster, D. G. (2015). “I need to terminate this pregnancy even if it will take my life”: A qualitative study of the effect of being denied legal abortion on women’s lives in Nepal. BMC Women’s Health, 15, 85. Roberts, S. C., Turok, D. K., Belusa, E., Combellick, S., & Upadhyay, U. D. (2016). Utah’s 72-hour waiting period for abortion: Experiences among a clinic-based sample of women. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 48(4), 179–187. Sallis, J. F., & Owen, N. (2002). Ecological models of health behavior. In B. Rimer, K. Glanz, & F. M. Lewis (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (Vol. 20) (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Upadhyay, U. D., Johns, N. E., Barron, R., Cartwright, A. F., Tape, C., Mierjeski, A., & McGregor, A. J. (2018). Abortion-related emergency department visits in the United States: An analysis of a national emergency department sample. BMC Medicine, 16(1), 88. Upadhyay, U. D., Johns, N. E., Combellick, S. L., Kohn, J. E., Keder, L. M., & Roberts, S. C. (2016). Comparison of outcomes before and after Ohio’s law mandating use of the FDA-approved protocol for medication abortion: A retrospective cohort study. PLoS Medicine, 13(8), e1002110. Upadhyay, U. D., Kimport, K., Belusa, E. K. O., Johns, N. E., Laube, D. W., & Roberts, S. C. M. (2017). Evaluating the impact of a mandatory pre-abortion ultrasound viewing law: A mixed methods study. PLoS One, 12(7), e0178871. Upadhyay, U. D., Weitz, T. A., Jones, R. K., Barar, R. E., & Foster, D. G. (2014). Denial of abortion because of provider gestational age limits in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 104(9), 1687–1694. Urban Institute, and Child Trends. (2007). National Survey of America’s Families (NSAF). Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].