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.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to ContraceptionAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Whole woman's health v Hellerstedt. 579 U.S.___________ (2016). No. 15–274. Supreme Court of the United States. (June 27,2016). Supreme Court of the United States blog.http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/whole-womans-health-v-cole/([accessed July 28, 2016])Date accessed: July 28, 2016
- The use of public health evidence in Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt.JAMA Intern Med. 2017; 177: 155-156
- Connecting knowledge about abortion and sexual and reproductive health to belief about abortion restrictions: findings from an online survey.Womens Health Issues. 2013; 23-24: e239-e247
- Knowledge and attitudes about contraception and abortion in Canada, US, UK, France and Australia.Gynecol Obstet. 2015; 5: 322
- Women's knowledge of and support for abortion restrictions in Texas: findings from a statewide representative survey.Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2016; 48: 189-197
- Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effect of corrective information.Vaccine. 2015; 33: 459-464
- Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial.Pediatrics. 2014; 133: 1-8
- About YouGov.([accessed October 30)
- February 2016 University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll.([accessed April 7, 2017])
- Public opinion on policy issues in genetics and genomics.Genet Med. 2014; 16: 491-494
- Pew research: YouGov consistently outperforms competitors on accuracy.https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/05/13/pew-research-yougov/([accessed November 16, 2016])Date: 2016Date accessed: November 16, 2016
- The 2006 cooperative congressional election study.J Elections Public Opin Parties. 2008; 18: 355-366
- NARAL pro-choice America: national survey.Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, Washington, D.C.2014
- Incidence of emergency department visits and complications after abortion.Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 125: 175-183
- Complications from first-trimester aspiration abortion: a systematic review of the literature.Contraception. 2015; 92: 422-438
- Change in number of physicians providing abortion care in Texas after HB2.https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/txpep/_files/pdf/TxPEP-ResearchBrief-AdmittingPrivileges.pdf([accessed August 19, 2017])Date: 2016Date accessed: August 19, 2017
- Ideology, the affordable care act ruling and supreme court legitimacy.Public Opin Q. 2014; 78: 963-973
- A modified Poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data.Am J Epidemiol. 2004; 159: 702-706
- Political polarization and media habits: from fox news to Facebook, how liberals and conservatives keep up with politics.http://journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/([accessed November 16, 2016])Date: 2014Date accessed: November 16, 2016
- Abortion surveillance at CDC: creating public health light out of political heat.Am J Prev Med. 2000; 19: 12-17
- Informed or misinformed consent? Abortion policy in the United States.J Health Polit Policy Law. 2013; 41: 181-209
- Reproductive health services: assessing the safety and quality of abortion care.http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/Activities/Women/ReproductiveHealthServices.aspx([accessed April 4, 2017])Date: 2017Date accessed: April 4, 2017
- Explained: abortion research & policy.http://innovating-education.org/course/explained-abortion-research-policy-2/([accessed March 10, 2017])Date: 2015Date accessed: March 10, 2017
- Standard definitions: final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys.American Association for Public Opinion Research, Oakbrook Terrace, IL2016
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 01, 2017
Accepted:
August 23,
2017
Received in revised form:
August 19,
2017
Received:
December 24,
2016
Footnotes
☆Role of the funding source: This project was supported by a grant from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and a center grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (5 R24 HD042849) awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin. These funders played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.
☆☆Conflicts of interest: none.
Identification
Copyright
© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
