15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Abortion service availability during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from a national census of abortion facilities in the U.S.

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          This study assessed the impact of COVID-19 on abortion services in all 50 United States states and the District of Columbia.

          Study design

          ANSIRH's Abortion Facility Database is a systematic collection of data on all publicly-advertising abortion facilities in the United States, updated annually through online searches and mystery shopper phone calls. Research staff updated the database in May-August 2020, assessing the number of facilities that closed, limited or stopped providing abortions, and provided telehealth options in summer 2020 due to COVID-19.  We describe these changes using frequencies and highlighting themes and examples from coded qualitative data.

          Results

          Located primarily in the South and Midwest, 24 of 751 facilities that were open in 2019 temporarily closed due to the pandemic, with 9 still closed by August 2020. Other facilities described suspending abortions, referring abortion patients to other facilities, or limiting services to medication abortion. While most facilities required in-person visits for reasons like state abortion restrictions, 22% ( n = 150) offered phone or telehealth consultations, no-test visits, or medication abortion by mail to reduce or eliminate patient time in the clinic. Some facilities used creative strategies to reduce COVID-19 risk like allowing patients to wait for visits in their cars or offering drive-through medication pick-up.

          Conclusions

          The COVID-19 pandemic caused several disruptions to abortion service availability, including closures. To reduce in-person visit time, some clinics shifted to offering medication abortion (versus procedural) or telehealth. While the pandemic and abortion restrictions increased barriers to abortion provision, facilities were resilient and adapted to provide safe care for their patients.

          Implications

          Barriers to abortion access were exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in areas of the country with more restrictive policies toward abortion. Telehealth care protocols offered by many abortion facilities provide an option to reduce or eliminate in-person visits.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Barriers to Abortion Care and Their Consequences For Patients Traveling for Services: Qualitative Findings from Two States

          CONTEXT Abortion availability and accessibility vary by state. Especially in areas where services are restricted or limited, some women travel to obtain abortion services in other states. Little is known about the experience of travel to obtain abortion. METHODS In January and February 2015, in-depth interviews were conducted with 29 patients seeking abortion services at six facilities in Michigan and New Mexico. Eligible women were 18 or older, spoke English, and had traveled either across state lines or more than 100 miles within the state. Respondents were asked to describe their experience from pregnancy discovery to the day of the abortion procedure. Barriers to accessing abortion care and consequences of these barriers were identified through inductive and deductive analysis. RESULTS Respondents described 15 barriers to abortion care while traveling to obtain services, and three major consequences of experiencing those barriers. Barriers were grouped into five categories: travel-related logistical issues, system navigation issues, limited clinic options, financial issues, and state or clinic restrictions. Consequences were delays in care, negative mental health impacts and considering self-induction. The experience of barriers complicated the process of obtaining an abortion, but the effect of any individual barrier was unclear. Instead, the experience of multiple barriers appeared to have a compounding effect, resulting in negative consequences for women traveling for abortion. CONCLUSION The amalgamation of barriers to abortion care experienced simultaneously can have significant consequences for patients.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Identifying National Availability of Abortion Care and Distance From Major US Cities: Systematic Online Search

            Background Abortion is a common medical procedure, yet its availability has become more limited across the United States over the past decade. Women who do not know where to go for abortion care may use the internet to find abortion facility information, and there appears to be more online searches for abortion in states with more restrictive abortion laws. While previous studies have examined the distances women must travel to reach an abortion provider, to our knowledge no studies have used a systematic online search to document the geographic locations and services of abortion facilities. Objective The objective of our study was to describe abortion facilities and services available in the United States from the perspective of a potential patient searching online and to identify US cities where people must travel the farthest to obtain abortion care. Methods In early 2017, we conducted a systematic online search for abortion facilities in every state and the largest cities in each state. We recorded facility locations, types of abortion services available, and facility gestational limits. We then summarized the frequencies by region and state. If the online information was incomplete or unclear, we called the facility using a mystery shopper method, which simulates the perspective of patients calling for services. We also calculated distance to the closest abortion facility from all US cities with populations of 50,000 or more. Results We identified 780 facilities through our online search, with the fewest in the Midwest and South. Over 30% (236/780, 30.3%) of all facilities advertised the provision of medication abortion services only; this proportion was close to 40% in the Northeast (89/233, 38.2%) and West (104/262, 39.7%). The lowest gestational limit at which services were provided was 12 weeks in Wyoming; the highest was 28 weeks in New Mexico. People in 27 US cities must travel over 100 miles (160 km) to reach an abortion facility; the state with the largest number of such cities is Texas (n=10). Conclusions Online searches can provide detailed information about the location of abortion facilities and the types of services they provide. However, these facilities are not evenly distributed geographically, and many large US cities do not have an abortion facility. Long distances can push women to seek abortion in later gestations when care is even more limited.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Sixteen Years of Overregulation: Time to Unburden Mifeprex.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Contracept X
                Contracept X
                Contraception: X
                The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.
                2590-1516
                6 July 2021
                2021
                6 July 2021
                : 3
                : 100067
                Affiliations
                [a ]Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, Oakland, CA, United States
                [b ]University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, CA, United States
                [c ]Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author.
                Article
                S2590-1516(21)00014-9 100067
                10.1016/j.conx.2021.100067
                8292833
                34308330
                59994d9e-1409-4999-9084-44a08d90fadc
                © 2021 The Authors

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 3 May 2021
                : 25 June 2021
                : 28 June 2021
                Categories
                Original Research Article

                abortion,abortion facilities,covid-19,telehealth,telemedicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article