Article Text

Download PDFPDF
‘Scrambling to figure out what to do’: a mixed method analysis of COVID-19’s impact on sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States
  1. Malia Maier1,2,
  2. Goleen Samari1,2,
  3. Jennifer Ostrowski1,2,
  4. Clarisa Bencomo1,2,
  5. Terry McGovern1,2
  1. 1 Heilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York, USA
  2. 2 Program on Global Health Justice and Governance, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York, USA
  1. Correspondence to Malia Maier, Heilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York, USA; mm5352{at}cumc.columbia.edu

Abstract

Objective A weak and politicised COVID-19 pandemic response in the United States (US) that failed to prioritise sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) overlaid longstanding SRHR inequities. In this study we investigated how COVID-19 affected SRHR service provision in the US during the first 6 months of the pandemic.

Methods We used a multiphase, three-part, mixed method approach incorporating: (1) a comprehensive review of state-by-state emergency response policies that mapped state-level actions to protect or suspend SRHR services including abortion, (2) a survey of SRHR service providers (n=40) in a sample of 10 states that either protected or suspended services and (3) in-depth interviews (n=15) with SRHR service providers and advocacy organisations.

Results Twenty-one states designated some or all SRHR services as essential and therefore exempt from emergency restrictions. Protections, however, varied by state and were not always comprehensive. Fourteen states acted to suspend abortion. Five cross-cutting themes surrounding COVID-19’s impact on SRHR services emerged across the survey and interviews: reductions in SRHR service provision; shifts in service utilisation; infrastructural impacts; the critical role of state and local governments; and exacerbation of SRHR inequities for certain groups.

Conclusions This study demonstrates serious disruptions to the provision of SRHR care that exacerbated existing SRHR inequities. The presence or absence of policy protections for SRHR services had critical implications for providers and patients. Policymakers and service providers must prioritise and integrate SRHR into emergency preparedness planning and implementation, with earmarked funding and tailored service delivery for historically oppressed groups.

  • COVID-19
  • reproductive health services
  • reproductive rights
  • sexual health
  • health policy
  • qualitative research

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author (MM). The data are not publicly available due to research ethics board restrictions.

This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.

https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author (MM). The data are not publicly available due to research ethics board restrictions.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors TM (study Principal Investigator) conceived the study and secured funding. GS and TM developed study instruments with input from MM, JO and CB. MM and JO collected the data, and MM, GS and JO conducted the analyses. All authors (MM, GS, JO, CB and TM) contributed to the interpretation of the data. MM, GS and JO created the first draft of the manuscript, and GS, CB and TM offered critical revision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

  • Funding This study was supported by the Ford Foundation (grant #133189; TM, Principal Investigator).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.