Utah's 72‐Hour Waiting Period for Abortion: Experiences Among a Clinic‐Based Sample of Women

Roberts, Sarah C. M.; Turok, David K.; Belusa, Elise; Combellick, Sarah; Upadhyay, Ushma D.

doi:10.1363/48e8216

Cited by 59 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Adults provided informed consent; minors aged 15 to 17 could participate with parental consent and their own assent. Detailed methods have been described elsewhere [17] . In brief, eligible women were asked to complete a baseline survey on an iPad prior to an abortion information visit and a follow up interview by phone with University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) interviewers three weeks later.…”

Section: Sample and Study Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At the time that they completed the baseline survey, women had not yet had any interaction with a health care provider or counselor at the study clinic. The main goal of the overall study was to examine women's reasons for not having an abortion under the 72-hour waiting period and twovisit requirement [17]; thus, we aimed to recruit at least 75 women who completed an abortion information visit but did not return for an abortion. Previous research in a state without a two visit or waiting period requirement found that 7% of women seek but do not obtain an abortion [14].…”

Section: Sample and Study Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, we explored the performance of the DCS subscales and the TBS in predicting still being pregnant at follow up using multivariate logistic regression models, extending our previous work that found that a higher score on the DCS scale (i.e. more uncertainty) was significantly and positively associated with still being pregnant at follow up [17]. We conducted all analyses using Stata 14.0 (College Station, TX) [28].…”

Section: Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Measuring decisional certainty among women seeking abortion

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

STRUCTURED ABSTRACT ObjectiveEvaluating decisional certainty is an important component of medical care, including pre-abortion care.However, minimal research has examined how to measure certainty with reliability and validity among women seeking abortion. We examine whether the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), a measure widely used in other health specialties and considered the gold standard for measuring this construct, and the Taft-Baker Scale (TBS), a measure developed by abortion counselors, are valid and reliable for use with women seeking abortion and predict the decision to continue the pregnancy. MethodsEligible women at four family planning facilities in Utah completed baseline demographic surveys and scales before their abortion information visit and follow-up interviews three weeks later. For each scale, we calculated mean scores and explored factors associated with high uncertainty. We evaluated internal reliability using Cronbach's alpha and assessed predictive validity by examining whether higher scale scores, indicative of decisional uncertainty or conflict, were associated with still being pregnant at followup. ResultsFive hundred women completed baseline surveys; two-thirds (63%) completed follow-up, at which time 11% were still pregnant. Mean scores on the DCS (15.5/100) and TBS (12.4/100) indicated low uncertainty, with acceptable reliability (α=0.93 and 0.72, respectively). Higher scores on each scale were significantly and positively associated with still being pregnant at follow-up in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses. ConclusionThe DCS and TBS demonstrate acceptable reliability and validity among women seeking abortion care.Comparing scores on the DCS in this population to other studies of decision-making suggests that the level of uncertainty in abortion decision-making is comparable to or lower than other health decisions. ImplicationsThe high levels of decisional certainty found in this study challenge the narrative that abortion decision making is exceptional compared to other healthcare decisions and requires additional protection such as laws mandating waiting periods, counseling, and ultrasound viewing.

show abstract

Section: Sample and Study Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sample and Study Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring decisional certainty among women seeking abortion

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our previous research has not found support for this argument (Roberts, Turok, Belusa, Combellick, & Upadhyay, 2016). In fact, we found that most women presenting for an abortion information visit under the 72-hour waiting period and twovisit requirement have made their decision when they presented for the information visit and go on to have an abortion .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…It was developed in health care settings where people were considering whether to have an influenza vaccination or undergo breast cancer screening (O'Connor, 1993) and has been used in studies of decision making regarding prenatal testing (Caleshu, Shiloh, Price, Sapp, & Biesecker, 2010), breast cancer treatment (Banegas et al, 2013;King et al, 2013), vasectomy (Labrecque, Paunescu, Plesu, Stacey, & Legare, 2010), and bariatric surgery (Schauer et al, 2014), among others. The DCS also demonstrated appropriate reliability, as well as construct and predictive validity, among abortion patients predicting which patients would proceed to have an abortion vs. continue the pregnancy (Ralph, Foster, Kimport, Turok, & Roberts, 2016;Roberts et al, 2016).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Do 72-Hour Waiting Periods and Two-Visit Requirements for Abortion Affect Women's Certainty? A Prospective Cohort Study

Roberts

Belusa

Turok

et al. 2017

Women's Health Issues

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This paper examines how Utah's 72-hour waiting period and two-visit requirement influence women's certainty about their decision to have an abortion.Procedures: This study uses data from a prospective cohort study of 500 women who presented at an abortion information visit at four Utah family planning facilities. At the information visit, participants completed a baseline survey; three weeks later, they completed telephone interviews that assessed their pregnancy outcome, change in certainty, and an open-ended question about factors affecting changes in certainty.Main findings: Two-thirds (63%) reported no change in certainty due to the information visit and three-fourths (74%) reported no change in certainty due to the waiting period. Changes in certainty were primarily in the direction of increased certainty, with more than five times more women reporting an increase (29%) than a decrease (5%) in certainty due to the visit and two times more women reporting an increase (17%) than a decrease (8%) due to waiting. Changes in certainty were concentrated among the minority (8%) who were conflicted about their decision at baseline. Decreases in certainty due to waiting were concentrated among those who became less certain due to the visit. Learning about the procedure, meeting staff, and discovering that the facility was a safe medical environment were main contributors to increased certainty. Conclusion:As changes in certainty were concentrated among the small minority who were conflicted at the information visit and occurred due to the information visit, a universal waiting period does not appear appropriate.

show abstract

Genetic Counselors’ Perception of the Effect on Practice of Laws Restricting Abortion

Cooney

Hercher

Bajaj

2017

Journal of Genetic Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2013, twenty-two states enacted seventy provisions restricting access to abortion. The legislation restricted access to abortions by instituting more regulations on providers and facilities, by prohibiting abortion prior to viability, by restricting funding available to patients and by requiring patients to wait a mandatory time period before having a procedure. Genetic counselors are trained to provide unbiased, comprehensive information in a non-directive style in order to allow patients to exercise their reproductive freedom. We developed a survey of 37 questions for genetic counselors to gauge the potential impact these provisions will have on their ability to be a patient advocate. A total of 286 individuals completed the survey; however, not all respondents answered all questions. Qualitative questions complemented quantitative survey entries, allowing respondents to input thoughts and examples. Results indicate genetic counselors in all regions share similar professional opinions about the provisions. More genetic counselors in the South and Midwest noticed changes impacting patients since the provisions have been enacted. These regional differences correlate with the location of states that have seem the greatest increase in antiabortion provisions.

show abstract

Utah's 72‐Hour Waiting Period for Abortion: Experiences Among a Clinic‐Based Sample of Women

Abstract: Introduction: This study investigates women's experiences with Utah's 72-hour waiting period and two-

Cited by 59 publications

References 21 publications

Measuring decisional certainty among women seeking abortion

Measuring decisional certainty among women seeking abortion

Do 72-Hour Waiting Periods and Two-Visit Requirements for Abortion Affect Women's Certainty? A Prospective Cohort Study

Genetic Counselors’ Perception of the Effect on Practice of Laws Restricting Abortion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About