Kari White1, Daniel Grossman2, Amanda Jean Stevenson3, Kristine Hopkins4, Joseph E Potter4. 1. Texas Policy Evaluation Project, 305 E. 23rd Street, Stop G1800, Austin, TX, 78712; Department of Health Care Organization and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1720 2nd Ave. South RPHB 320, Birmingham, AL, 35294. Electronic address: kariwhite@uab.edu. 2. Texas Policy Evaluation Project, 305 E. 23rd Street, Stop G1800, Austin, TX, 78712; Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 1330 Broadway Suite 1100,Oakland, CA, 94612. 3. Texas Policy Evaluation Project, 305 E. 23rd Street, Stop G1800, Austin, TX, 78712; Department of Sociology and Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado Boulder, UCB 327 Ketchum 195, Boulder, CO 80309. 4. Texas Policy Evaluation Project, 305 E. 23rd Street, Stop G1800, Austin, TX, 78712; Population Research Center and the Department of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin, 305 E. 23rd Street, Stop G1800, Austin, TX, 78712.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess whether information about abortion safety and awareness of abortion laws affect voters' opinions about medically unnecessary abortion regulations. STUDY DESIGN: Between May and June 2016, we randomized 1200 Texas voters to receive or not receive information describing the safety of office-based abortion care during an online survey about abortion laws using simple random assignment. We compared the association between receiving safety information and awareness of recent restrictions and beliefs that ambulatory surgical center (ASC) requirements for abortion facilities and hospital admitting privileges requirements for physicians would make abortion safer. We used Poisson regression, adjusting for political affiliation and views on abortion. RESULTS: Of 1200 surveyed participants, 1183 had complete data for analysis: 612 in the information group and 571 in the comparison group. Overall, 259 (46%) in the information group and 298 (56%) in the comparison group believed that the ASC requirement would improve abortion safety (p=.008); 230 (41%) in the information group and 285 (54%) in the comparison group believed that admitting privileges would make abortion safer (p<.001). After multivariable adjustment, the information group was less likely to report that the ASC [prevalence ratio (PR): 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72-0.94] and admitting privileges requirements (PR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.65-0.88) would improve safety. Participants who identified as conservative Republicans were more likely to report that the ASC (82%) and admitting privileges requirements (83%) would make abortion safer if they had heard of the provisions than if they were unaware of them (ASC: 52%; admitting privileges: 47%; all p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Informational statements reduced perceptions that restrictive laws make abortion safer. Voters' prior awareness of the requirements also was associated with their beliefs. IMPLICATIONS: Informational messages can shift scientifically unfounded views about abortion safety and could reduce support for restrictive laws. Because prior awareness of abortion laws does not ensure accurate knowledge about their effects on safety, it is important to reach a broad audience through early dissemination of information about new regulations.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess whether information about abortion safety and awareness of abortion laws affect voters' opinions about medically unnecessary abortion regulations. STUDY DESIGN: Between May and June 2016, we randomized 1200 Texas voters to receive or not receive information describing the safety of office-based abortion care during an online survey about abortion laws using simple random assignment. We compared the association between receiving safety information and awareness of recent restrictions and beliefs that ambulatory surgical center (ASC) requirements for abortion facilities and hospital admitting privileges requirements for physicians would make abortion safer. We used Poisson regression, adjusting for political affiliation and views on abortion. RESULTS: Of 1200 surveyed participants, 1183 had complete data for analysis: 612 in the information group and 571 in the comparison group. Overall, 259 (46%) in the information group and 298 (56%) in the comparison group believed that the ASC requirement would improve abortion safety (p=.008); 230 (41%) in the information group and 285 (54%) in the comparison group believed that admitting privileges would make abortion safer (p<.001). After multivariable adjustment, the information group was less likely to report that the ASC [prevalence ratio (PR): 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72-0.94] and admitting privileges requirements (PR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.65-0.88) would improve safety. Participants who identified as conservative Republicans were more likely to report that the ASC (82%) and admitting privileges requirements (83%) would make abortion safer if they had heard of the provisions than if they were unaware of them (ASC: 52%; admitting privileges: 47%; all p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Informational statements reduced perceptions that restrictive laws make abortion safer. Voters' prior awareness of the requirements also was associated with their beliefs. IMPLICATIONS: Informational messages can shift scientifically unfounded views about abortion safety and could reduce support for restrictive laws. Because prior awareness of abortion laws does not ensure accurate knowledge about their effects on safety, it is important to reach a broad audience through early dissemination of information about new regulations.
Authors: Ushma D Upadhyay; Sheila Desai; Vera Zlidar; Tracy A Weitz; Daniel Grossman; Patricia Anderson; Diana Taylor Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Leo Han; Emily R Boniface; Lisa Yin Han; Jonathan Albright; Nora Doty; Blair G Darney Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 5.428