Article Text

Download PDFPDF
“That’s not how abortions happen”: a qualitative study exploring how young adults navigate abortion misinformation in the post-Roe era
    1. 1Program in Human Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
    2. 2Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
    3. 3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
    4. 4Departments of Pediatrics and Health Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
    1. Correspondence to Jennifer N John; jennifernj{at}alumni.stanford.edu

    Abstract

    Background Misinformation about abortion is widespread and was exacerbated by the overturn of Roe v Wade. Young adults are among those facing the most direct impacts of new abortion restrictions and are more likely to access health information from online sources, where misinformation is prevalent. We explored how young adults perceive and evaluate abortion-related information in a time of heightened abortion restrictions.

    Methods We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 25 young adults (aged 18–24 years, 56% assigned female at birth), recruited across 17 US states (44% living in states with restrictive abortion policies), between June and September 2022. We derived themes from the interviews using reflexive thematic analysis.

    Results While many participants were aware of and had personally encountered abortion misinformation, their susceptibility to false claims varied substantially based on their previous knowledge of abortion and exposure to anti-abortion rhetoric. Participants tended to reject some common myths regarding the medical risks of abortion (eg, association with breast cancer), while expressing a wider range of views regarding its impacts on fertility and mental health. When presented with contradictory sources of abortion information, most participants were unable to confidently reject the misleading source. Knowledge gaps left participants vulnerable to misinformation, while prior scepticism of anti-abortion rhetoric protected participants against misinformation.

    Conclusions In this diverse national sample, young adults demonstrated a range of perceptions of abortion misinformation and approaches to identify it. These results lay the groundwork for future observational and experimental research in public health communication.

    • abortion, induced
    • qualitative research
    • health education
    • adolescent
    • Patient Education as Topic
    • sex education

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request. Data are not publicly available to protect participant privacy. Data are available upon request to the study’s corresponding author.

    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. Data are not publicly available to protect participant privacy. Data are available upon request to the study’s corresponding author.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors JNJ is the guarantor and conceptualised and designed the study, performed the literature review, recruited participants, conducted and transcribed the interviews, coded the interview transcripts, performed the qualitative analysis, and composed the manuscript. AW coded all interview transcripts, participated in key discussions about the qualitative analysis and findings, and provided feedback on the manuscript. PDB provided mentorship throughout the study design and execution, guided the development of the research questions and study design, contributed to the interview protocol, participated in formative discussions during the qualitative analysis, and provided feedback on the manuscript. LMS provided mentorship throughout the study design and execution, guided the development of the research questions and study design, contributed to the interview protocol, participated in formative discussions during the qualitative analysis, facilitated conversations to resolve coding discrepancies, and provided feedback on the manuscript.

    • Funding JNJ was supported by an undergraduate research student grant from Stanford University. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not an official position of the institution or funder.

    • 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.