You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Understanding pre-residency abortion training pathways and career choices in the United States: a qualitative study
  1. Rebecca Henderson1,
  2. Valeria Barreto2,
  3. Molly Nyren1,
  4. Olivia Moumne1,
  5. Tory Finley1,
  6. Sharon Byun3,
  7. Alexandra Monaco3,
  8. Jody Steinauer4
  1. 1 College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
  2. 2 Jerry M Wallace School of Osteopathic Medicine, Campbell University, Buies Creek, North Carolina, USA
  3. 3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
  4. 4 Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Rebecca Henderson, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA; rrhenderson{at}ufl.edu

Abstract

Background Many factors contribute to the decision to provide abortion in the United States. We aim to describe pre-residency experiences and decisions that contribute to choosing a career as an abortion provider in the United States.

Methods We conducted 60-min semi-structured telephone interviews with 34 current abortion care providers about their career trajectories, decision-making and planning. Interviews were transcribed and coded by three members of the research team using thematic analysis.

Results A majority of the participants considered (73.5%, n=25) and firmly committed (62.8%, n=22) to providing abortion care prior to entering residency. They described important professional experiences with women’s health and reproductive rights, as well as personal experiences with abortion care, all of which inspired them to seek out abortion training during medical school and residency. Participants also described a dearth of mentors or role models until late in training, especially for family physicians.

Conclusions Our study suggests that the decision to provide abortion care is often made prior to residency training, before or during medical school, so additional support may be needed to promote exposure to abortion care during undergraduate medical education or even before. Further, there is a need for improved mentorship and role modelling during these periods, especially for family physicians. This may be especially critical after the overturn of Roe v Wade, as medical schools in restrictive states may not be able to provide abortions to patients, depriving students of role models who are abortion providers.

  • Abortion, Therapeutic
  • abortion, induced
  • Health Services Accessibility
  • family planning services
  • qualitative research

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Anonymous data are available upon reasonable request. All identifying characteristics have been removed to protect the participants' anonymity.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2023-201872

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

    Data are available upon reasonable request. Anonymous data are available upon reasonable request. All identifying characteristics have been removed to protect the participants' anonymity.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors RH, JS and SB contributed to study design. RH collected data, led analysis, and led manuscript writing and editing. VB, MN, OM, TF, SB and JS contributed to data analysis. AM, VB, MN, OM, TF, SB and JS contributed to manuscript writing and editing. RH is responsible for the overall content as a guarantor.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

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

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.