Advertisement

Physician attitudes about abortion and their willingness to consult in abortion care at a Midwestern academic medical center

      Abstract

      Objective

      To assess abortion-related attitudes, practices, and perceptions among physicians of all specialties at a Wisconsin academic medical center.

      Study design

      We developed and disseminated a cross-sectional web and mail survey to physicians at our academic center using a list generated by Human Resources. We performed descriptive analyses and assessed bivariate relationships between measures of support for abortion, perceived climate of opinion, willingness to consult in abortion-related cases, and sociodemographic and professional characteristics. We used binary logistic regression to model willingness to consult.

      Results

      We sent the survey to 1357 physicians and received 913 (67%) responses. Participants reported strong support for unrestricted access to abortion and the efforts of abortion providers but estimated relatively lower support among peers. Compared to 556 (62%) who reported “a lot” of support for abortion access, only 183 (21%) estimated the same level of support among peers. Similarly, 615 (69%) participants reported “a lot” of support for abortion providers, compared to only 227 (25%) who estimated the same level of support among peers. Participants most commonly estimated that peers “somewhat” support abortion access (381; 43%) and abortion providers (344; 39%). Across specialties, 799 (90%) physicians said they were at least “somewhat” willing to consult in abortion-related cases. Compared to obstetrician-gynecologists and family physicians, other specialists were less likely to be willing to consult (aOR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.29–0.65), though majorities of both groups were willing. Physicians who perceived equal or higher support for abortion among peers were more likely to be willing to consult (aOR = 2.17, 95% CI 1.60–2.95).

      Conclusion

      Most physicians at our center reported support for abortion; however, those who perceived less support among peers reported less willingness to consult in abortion-related care, regardless of specialty.

      Implications

      Even among physicians who supported abortion, the perception that peers were less supportive deterred participation in abortion-related care at our institution. Where abortion care is isolated or stigmatized, physicians may be unaware of colleagues’ true attitudes about abortion. Efforts to normalize communication about abortion care could improve access and quality.

      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 access
      One-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 Contraception
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. Frontline Physicians Call on Politicians to End Political Interference in the Delivery of Evidence Based Medicine. American Academy of Family Phyicians n.d. https://www.aafp.org/media-center/releases-statements/all/2019/physicians-call-on-politicians-to-end-political-interference-in-the-delivery-of-evidence-based-medicine.html (accessed November 22, 2019).

      2. AMA lawsuit to protect patient-physician relationship in North Dakota. Am Med Assoc n.d. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-lawsuit-protect-patient-physician-relationship-north-dakota (accessed November 22, 2019).

      3. AMA opposes proposed rule on Title X family planning program. Am Med Assoc n.d. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-opposes-proposed-rule-title-x-family-planning-program(accessed November 22, 2019).

        • Nash E.
        Abortion rights in peril — What clinicians need to know.
        N Engl J Med. 2019; 381: 497-499https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1906972
        • Jones RK
        • Jerman J.
        Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2014.
        Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2017; 49: 17-27https://doi.org/10.1363/psrh.12015
      4. State Abortion Policy Landscape: From Hostile to Supportive. Guttmacher Inst 2018. https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2019/08/state-abortion-policy-landscape-hostile-supportive (accessed September 17, 2020).

      5. Abortion. vol. § 940.04. 1849.

      6. Abortion Policy in the Absence of Roe. Guttmacher Inst 2016. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-policy-absence-roe (accessed September 17, 2020).

      7. State facts about abortion: wisconsin. Guttmacher Institute; 2019. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-wisconsin [accessed May 27, 2021].

        • Jones RK
        • Witwer E
        • Jerman J.
        Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2017.
        Guttmacher Institute, 2019 (https://www.guttmacher.org/report/abortion-incidence-service-availability-us-2017 [accessed May 27, 2021])
        • Martin LA
        • Seewald M
        • Johnson TRB
        • Harris LH.
        Trusted colleagues or incompetent hacks? Development of the attitudes about abortion-providing physicians scale.
        Womens Health Issues. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2019.09.002
        • Higgins JA
        • Schmuhl NB
        • Wautlet CK
        • Rice LW.
        The importance of physician concern and expertise in increasing abortion health care access in local contexts.
        Am J Public Health. 2020; : e1-e4https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305997
        • Dodge LE
        • Haider S
        • Hacker MR.
        Attitudes toward Abortion among Providers of Reproductive Health Care.
        Womens Health Issues. 2016; 26: 511-516https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2016.06.005
        • Chuang CH
        • Martenis ME
        • Parisi SM
        • Delano RE
        • Sobota M
        • Nothnagle M
        • et al.
        Contraception and abortion coverage: what do primary care physicians think?.
        Contraception. 2012; 86: 153-156https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2011.11.069
        • Desai S
        • Jones RK
        • Castle K.
        Estimating abortion provision and abortion referrals among United States obstetrician-gynecologists in private practice.
        Contraception. 2018; 97: 297-302https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2017.11.004
        • Stulberg DB
        • Dude AM
        • Dahlquist I
        • Curlin FA.
        Abortion provision among practicing Obstetrician–Gynecologists.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118: 609-614https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31822ad973
        • Homaifar N
        • Freedman L
        • French V.
        She's on her own”: a thematic analysis of clinicians’ comments on abortion referral.
        Contraception. 2017; 95: 470-476https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2017.01.007
        • Holt K
        • Janiak E
        • McCormick MC
        • Lieberman E
        • Dehlendorf C
        • Kajeepeta S
        • et al.
        Pregnancy options counseling and abortion referrals among US primary care physicians.
        Fam Med. 2017; : 10
        • Myran DT
        • Carew CL
        • Tang J
        • Whyte H
        • Fisher WA.
        Medical students’ intentions to seek abortion training and to provide abortion services in future practice.
        J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2015; 37: 236-244https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30309-1
        • Britton LE
        • Mercier RJ
        • Buchbinder M
        • Bryant AG.
        Abortion providers, professional identity, and restrictive laws: a qualitative study.
        Health Care Women Int. 2017; 38: 222-237https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2016.1254218
        • Freedman L
        • Landy U
        • Darney P
        • Steinauer J.
        Obstacles to the integration of abortion into obstetrics and gynecology practice.
        Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2010; 42: 146-151https://doi.org/10.1363/4214610
        • Astbury-Ward E.
        Staff Perspectives. Abort. Care.
        Cambridge University Press, 2014: 211-218 (Ed Sam Rowlands)
        • Park HS
        • Smith SW.
        Distinctiveness and influence of subjective norms, personal descriptive and injunctive norms, and societal descriptive and injunctive norms on behavioral intent: a case of two behaviors critical to organ donation.
        Hum Commun Res. 2007; 33: 194-218https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00296.x
        • Park HS
        • Klein KA
        • Smith S
        • Martell D.
        Separating subjective norms, university descriptive and injunctive norms, and U.S. descriptive and injunctive norms for drinking behavior intentions.
        Health Commun. 2009; 24: 746-751https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230903265912
        • Brener L
        • von Hippel C
        • Horwitz R
        • Hamwood J.
        The impact of pluralistic ignorance on the provision of health care for people who inject drugs.
        J Health Psychol. 2015; 20: 1240-1249https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105313510336
      8. Rathbone JA, Cruwys T, Jetten J, Barlow FK.When stigma is the norm: how weight and social norms influence the healthcare we receive. J Appl Soc Psycholn.d.;n/a. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12689.

        • Harris LH
        • Cooper A
        • Rasinski KA
        • Curlin FA
        • Lyerly AD.
        Obstetrician–Gynecologists’ objections to and willingness to help patients obtain an abortion.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118: 905-912https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31822f12b7
        • Dykema J
        • Jones NR
        • Piché T
        • Stevenson J.
        Surveying clinicians by web: current issues in design and administration.
        Eval Health Prof. 2013; 36: 352-381https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278713496630
        • Pace L
        • Sandahl Y
        • Backus L
        • Silveira M
        • Steinauer J.
        Medical students for choice's reproductive health externships: impact on medical students’ knowledge, attitudes and intention to provide abortions.
        Contraception. 2008; 78: 31-35https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2008.02.008
        • Martin LA
        • Debbink M
        • Hassinger J
        • Youatt E
        • Harris LH.
        Abortion providers, stigma and professional quality of life.
        Contraception. 2014; 90: 581-587https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2014.07.011
        • Turner KL
        • Pearson E
        • George A
        • Andersen KL.
        Values clarification workshops to improve abortion knowledge, attitudes and intentions: a pre-post assessment in 12 countries.
        Reprod Health. 2018; 15: 40https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-018-0480-0