BACKGROUND: Abortion facilities represent a potentially convenient setting for providing contraception to women experiencing unintended pregnancies. This analysis examines a range of factors that may act as barriers to integrating contraceptive and abortion services and documents abortion providers' perspectives on their role in their patients' contraceptive care. METHODS: Administrators from 173 large, nonhospital facilities that provide abortions in the United States responded to a structured survey between May and September 2009. We used chi-square tests to assess differences in categorical outcomes. RESULTS: Although the majority of U.S. abortion facilities offer a range of contraceptive methods on site, facility staff identified multiple barriers to full integration of the two services, in particular, insurance, patient, and cost barriers. Few of these perceived barriers, however, were associated with differences in the actual provision of most contraceptive methods. Specialized abortion clinics that do not accept health insurance were less likely to have highly effective methods, such as intrauterine devices and implants, on site. Facilities located in Medicaid states were more likely to accept both public and private health insurance for contraceptive services. CONCLUSION: Increased access to contraceptive services during abortion care is one strategy for reducing repeat unintended pregnancy, and stakeholders at all levels--including abortion providers, insurance companies, and policy makers--have a role to play in achieving this goal.
BACKGROUND: Abortion facilities represent a potentially convenient setting for providing contraception to women experiencing unintended pregnancies. This analysis examines a range of factors that may act as barriers to integrating contraceptive and abortion services and documents abortion providers' perspectives on their role in their patients' contraceptive care. METHODS: Administrators from 173 large, nonhospital facilities that provide abortions in the United States responded to a structured survey between May and September 2009. We used chi-square tests to assess differences in categorical outcomes. RESULTS: Although the majority of U.S. abortion facilities offer a range of contraceptive methods on site, facility staff identified multiple barriers to full integration of the two services, in particular, insurance, patient, and cost barriers. Few of these perceived barriers, however, were associated with differences in the actual provision of most contraceptive methods. Specialized abortion clinics that do not accept health insurance were less likely to have highly effective methods, such as intrauterine devices and implants, on site. Facilities located in Medicaid states were more likely to accept both public and private health insurance for contraceptive services. CONCLUSION: Increased access to contraceptive services during abortion care is one strategy for reducing repeat unintended pregnancy, and stakeholders at all levels--including abortion providers, insurance companies, and policy makers--have a role to play in achieving this goal.
Authors: Tessa Madden; David L Eisenberg; Qiuhong Zhao; Christina Buckel; Gina M Secura; Jeffrey F Peipert Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Christine Tagliaferri Rael; Cody Lentz; Alex Carballo-Diéguez; Rebecca Giguere; Curtis Dolezal; Daniel Feller; Richard T D'Aquila; Thomas J Hope Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 5.428