Original research articleDeterminants of demand: method selection and provider preference among US women seeking abortion services
Introduction
Approximately half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and >40% of these pregnancies end in termination [1]. While the abortion rate has declined slightly in recent years, this service is still sought annually by approximately 2% of women of reproductive age [2]. Although the demand remains high, there are growing concerns about the supply of providers and access to services. For example, only 13% of US counties have an abortion provider; consequently, 34% of women in the United States (49% in the Midwest and 45% in the South) live in counties with no access to abortion, creating a substantial burden for women who must travel a great distance to reach a provider [2]. This burden increases for women living in the 24 states with enforceable mandatory delay laws, many of which require multiple visits [3].
A related concern is the decline, over several decades, in the number of abortion provision sites, as well as in the number of individual clinicians performing the service [2], [4]. In addition, since most abortions are performed at abortion clinics [2], women with established health care providers often must seek out a new provider at a new location in order to obtain abortion services. While these various barriers to access may cause financial, logistic and/or emotional hardships, they also contribute to delays in the abortion procedure itself, for which the associated risks have been shown to increase with gestation [5].
Medication abortion has the potential to greatly improve the availability of abortion services by expanding provider networks to include physicians who do not offer aspiration procedures. Diversifying the types of providers might be especially useful in rural areas where family physicians provide the majority of health care [6]. In the handful of states without physician-only abortion laws [3], nurse practitioners and physician assistants could also provide this service. A related benefit to expanding provider networks could be a reduction in the harassment of abortion patients, which is still a fairly common occurrence [7].
Unfortunately, such an expansion has yet to occur, as medication abortion is infrequently available from any provider not already offering aspiration abortion [8], [9]. Both logistic and legislative issues quite likely play a large role in this lack of uptake [9], [10], [11]. A third possible reason, briefly addressed in prior publications [8] and requiring further exploration, is a perceived lack of demand for medication abortion from women utilizing private health care. If the latter is indeed a barrier to adding medication abortion services, it should be validated and addressed. However, little is known about women's interest in medication abortion, let alone their willingness to forgo a choice of surgical or medical method. While a few studies of American women have explored reasons for choosing medication abortion (the majority of which were conducted prior to the approval of mifepristone in this country or were performed among women using methotrexate regimens) [12], [13], [14], [15], very little is known about why some American women select the aspiration option when choosing to have an abortion [16]. Moreover, to our knowledge, there exist no published data exploring clients' desires regarding the type of abortion provider (specifically the interest in one's private or “regular” physician), nor how method and provider choices might intersect. Until there is a better understanding of the clinical decision making of abortion clients, the promise of the use of medication abortion to improve access to services through expanded provider networks is likely to remain unrealized.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
An exploratory study was undertaken to investigate how abortion clients select their method of abortion, how they select their abortion provider, and how these two choices interact. The study took place from May through July 2006 at three Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa (PPGI) clinics that offered both aspiration and medication abortion services. The study was approved by the University of Michigan Health Sciences Institutional Review Board and by the Planned Parenthood Federation of
Descriptives
During the interview period, 638 patients aged ≥18 years had abortions at the participating clinics. Of these, 205 were interviewed. The response rate is therefore estimated at 32%; however, this percentage is somewhat conservative due to a small number of non-English speakers, estimated at three to four per week (personal communication with clinic managers), who were not eligible for the study. All but one woman who expressed interest in the study signed consent forms and were interviewed.
The
Discussion
This research study is exploratory and, therefore, primarily descriptive. Given the paucity of studies that have investigated abortion method preferences and the absence of published work on abortion provider preferences, these data may offer some important insights into these arenas. Additionally, while the study was conducted in only one state, there are implications for many parts of the country.
Expanding provider networks into the private sector (primarily via provision of medication
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by Danco Laboratories, LLC. Thanks are expressed to Rachel Snow for comments on an earlier draft of this study.
References (19)
- et al.
Normalizing the exceptional: incorporating the “abortion pill” into mainstream medicine
Soc Sci Med
(2003) - et al.
Legal issues in the provision of medication abortion
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(2000) - et al.
Acceptability of medical abortion with methotrexate and misoprostol
Contraception
(1995) - et al.
Methotrexate and misoprostol for early abortion: a multicenter trial. Acceptability
Contraception
(1996) - et al.
The role of emergency contraception
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(2004) - et al.
Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001
Perspect Sex Reprod Health
(2006) - et al.
Abortion incidence and services in the United States in 2000
Perspect Sex Reprod Health
(2003) Who decides? The status of women's reproductive rights in the United States
(2007)Clinicians who provide abortions: the thinning ranks
Obstet Gynecol
(1992)
Cited by (38)
Patient opinions on sexual and reproductive health services in primary care in rural and urban clinics
2022, ContraceptionCitation Excerpt :Another hypothesis is that respondents from rural sites prefer to access abortion outside of the primary care setting. One study of people seeking abortion care in Iowa found that the majority of those surveyed would not prefer to obtain abortion care from their regular family medicine or OB/GYN physician, citing uncertainty of confidentiality, or because their doctor knew their family [8]. Confidentiality concerns are similarly found in studies of other stigmatized services, including substance use disorder treatment [18].
Understanding women's provider choice for induced abortion in Turkey
2021, Health PolicyMedication or surgical abortion? An exploratory study of patient decision making on a popular social media platform
2021, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology