Premium
Interprofessional Abortion Opposition: A National Survey and Qualitative Interviews with Abortion Training Program Directors at U.S. Teaching Hospitals
Author(s) -
Bennett Ariana H.,
Freedman Lori,
Landy Uta,
Langton Callie,
Ly Elizabeth,
Rocca Corinne H.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
perspectives on sexual and reproductive health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.818
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1931-2393
pISSN - 1538-6341
DOI - 10.1363/psrh.12162
Subject(s) - opposition (politics) , abortion , medicine , family medicine , odds , nursing , logistic regression , pregnancy , political science , politics , law , biology , genetics
CONTEXT Hospital policies and culture affect abortion provision. The prevalence and nature of colleague opposition to abortion and how this opposition limits abortion care in U.S. teaching hospitals have not been investigated. METHODS As part of a mixed‐methods study, a nationwide survey of residency and site directors at 169 accredited obstetrics‐gynecology training programs was conducted in 2015–2016, and 18 in‐depth interviews with program directors were conducted in 2014 and 2017. The prevalence and nature of interprofessional opposition were examined using descriptive statistics, and regional differences were investigated using logistic regression. A modified grounded theoretical approach was used to analyze interview data. RESULTS Among the 91% of survey respondents who reported that they or their colleagues had wanted or needed to provide abortions in the prior year, 69% faced opposition from colleagues. Most commonly, opposition came from nurses (58%), nursing administration (30%) and anesthesiologists (30%), manifesting as resistance to participating in or cooperating with procedures (51% and 38%, respectively). Fifty‐nine percent of respondents had denied care to patients in the prior year because of colleagues’ opposition. Respondents in the Midwest and South were more likely than those in the Northeast to deny abortion care to patients because of such opposition (odds ratios, 3.2 and 4.4, respectively). Interviews revealed how participants had to circumvent opposing colleagues, making abortion provision difficult and leading to delays in and, infrequently, denial of abortion care. CONCLUSIONS Interprofessional opposition to abortion is widespread in U.S. teaching hospitals. Interventions are needed that prioritize patients’ needs while recognizing the challenges hospital colleagues face in their abortion participation decisions.