Provider Mistrust and Telemedicine Abortion Care Preferences Among Patients in Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky
Publication: Telemedicine and e-Health
Volume 29, Issue Number 3
Abstract
Objectives: The convenience and privacy provided by telemedicine medication abortion may make this service preferable to patients who mistrust their abortion provider. We assessed associations between mistrust in the abortion provider and preferences for telemedicine abortion.
Study Design: From April 2020 to April 2021, we surveyed patients seeking abortion in Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky. Using unconditional logistic regression models, we examined unadjusted and adjusted associations between mistrust in the abortion provider and preferences for telemedicine abortion among all participants, and among only participants undergoing medication abortion.
Results: Of 1,218 patients who met inclusion criteria, 546 used medication abortion services. Just more than half (56%) of all participants and many (64%) of medication abortion participants preferred telemedicine services. Only 6% of medication abortion participants received telemedicine medication dispensing services. Only 1.4% of all participants and 1% of medication abortion participants mistrusted the abortion provider. Participants who mistrusted the abortion provider were somewhat more likely to prefer telemedicine abortion (unadjusted odds ratio [OR]: 2.5, 95% CI: 0.8–7.9; adjusted OR: 2.9, 95% CI: 0.9–9), and medication abortion participants who mistrusted the abortion provider were also somewhat more likely to prefer telemedicine abortion (unadjusted OR: 3.5, 95% CI: 0.4–28.9; adjusted OR: 5.0, 95% CI: 0.6–43), although these associations were not statistically significant.
Conclusions: In three abortion-restrictive states, most patients expressed preferences for telemedicine abortion, but few accessed them. Provider mistrust was rare, but those experiencing mistrust trended toward preferring telemedicine services. Telemedicine may improve access to abortion services for patients experiencing medical mistrust.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
REFERENCES
1. Endler M, Lavelanet A, Cleeve A, et al. Telemedicine for medical abortion: A systemic review. BJOG 2019;126:1094–1102.
2. Grossman D, Grindlay K. Safety of medical abortion provided through telemedicine compared with in person. Obstet Gynecol 2017;130:778–782.
3. Grossman D, Grindlay K, Buchacker T, et al. Effectiveness and acceptability of medical abortion provided through telemedicine. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118(2 Pt 1):296–303.
4. Grindlay K, Lane K, Grossman D. Women's and providers' experiences with medical abortion provided through telemedicine: A qualitative study. Womens Health Issues 2013;23:e117–e122.
5. Kohn JE, Snow JL, Simons HR, et al. Medication abortion provided through telemedicine in four U.S. States. Obstet Gynecol 2019;134:343–350.
6. Hoyt MA, Rubin LR, Nemeroff CJ, et al. HIV/AIDS-related institutional mistrust among multiethnic men who have sex with men: Effects on HIV testing and risk behaviors. Health Psychol 2012;31:269.
7. Adams LB, Richmond J, Corbie-Smith G, et al. Medical mistrust and colorectal cancer screening among African Americans. J Community Health 2017;42:1044–1061.
8. Ramos SR, Warren R, Shedlin M, et al. A Framework for Using eHealth Interventions to Overcome Medical Mistrust Among Sexual Minority Men of Color Living with Chronic Conditions. Behav Med 2019;45:166–176.
9. Duthely LM, Sanchez-Covarrubias AP, Mohamed AB, et al. A multilingual, culturally competent mobile health intervention to improve treatment adherence among women living with HIV: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res Protoc 2020;9:e17656.
10. Kahn LS, Fox CH, Carrington J, et al. Telephonic nurse case management for patients with diabetes and mental illnesses: A qualitative perspective. Chronic Illn 2009;5:257–267.
11. Norris A, Bessett D, Steinberg JR, et al. Abortion stigma: A reconceptualization of constituents, causes and consequences. Womens Health Issues 2011;21(3 Suppl):S49–S54.
12. Harris LH, Martin L, Debbink M, et al. Physicians, abortion provision and the legitimacy paradox. Contraception 2013;87:11–16.
13. Kumar A, Hessini L, Mitchell E. Conceptualizing abortion stigma. Cult Health Sex 2009;11:625–639.
14. Jones RK, Witwer E, Jerman J. Guttmacher Institute. Abortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States. Washington, DC; 2017. Available at www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/abortion-incidence-service-availability-us-2017.pdf (last accessed February 06, 2022).
15. Guttmacher Institute. Counseling and Waiting Periods for Abortion. Washington, DC; 2022. Available at www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/counseling-and-waiting-periods-abortion (last accessed February 06, 2022).
16. Weech-Maldonado R, Carle A, Weider B, et al. The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) cultural competence (CC) item set. Med Care 2012;50 (9 Suppl 2):S22–S31.
17. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009;42:377–381.
18. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. REDCap Consortium, The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software partners. J Biomed Inform 2019;95:103208.
19. Armstrong K, Ravenell KL, McMurphy S, et al. Racial/ethnic differences in physician distrust in the United States. Am J Public Health 2007;97:1283–1289.
20. Boulware LE, Cooper LA, Ratner LE, et al. Race and trust in the health care system. Public Health Rep 2003;118:358–365.
21. Kinlock BL, Parker LJ, Bowie JV, et al. High levels of medical mistrust are associated with low quality of life among Black and White Men with prostate cancer. Cancer Control 2017;24:72– 77.
22. Harris LH, Debbink M, Martin L, et al. Dynamics of stigma in abortion work: Findings from a pilot study of the Providers Share Workshop. Soc Sci Med 2011;73:1062–1070.
23. Guttmacher Institute. State Facts About Abortion: Kentucky. Washington, DC; 2022. Available at www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-Kentucky (last accessed February 06, 2022).
24. Guttmacher Institute. State Facts About Abortion: West Virginia. Washington, DC; 2022. Available at www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-west-virginia#1 (last accessed February 06, 2022).
25. Guttmacher Institute. State Facts About Abortion: Ohio. Washington, DC; 2022. Available at www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-ohio (last accessed February 06, 2022).
26. Mello K, Smith MH, Hill BJ, et al. Federal, state, and institutional barriers to the expansion of medication and telemedicine abortion services in Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Contraception 2021;104:111–116.
27. Aiken ARA, Starling JE, van der Wal A, et al. Demand for self-managed medication abortion through an online telemedicine service in the United States. Am J Public Health 2020;110:90–97.
28. Boydell N, Reynolds-Wright JJ, Cameron ST, et al. Women's experiences of a telemedicine abortion service (up to 12 weeks) implemented during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic: A qualitative evaluation. BJOG 2021;128:1752–1761.
29. Atay H, Perivier H, Gemzell-Danielsson K, et al. Why women choose at-home abortion via teleconsultation in France: Drivers of telemedicine abortion during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Sex Reprod Health 2021;47:285–289.
30. Phipps M. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Statement on Texas SB8, News Release. Washington, DC; 2021. Available at www.acog.org/news/news-releases/2021/09/statement-on-texas-sb8 (last accessed February 06, 2022).
31. Ohio Laws and Administrative Rules. Ohio Rev Code §2919.10 Abortion related to finding of down syndrome. State of Ohio; 2018. Available at https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.10 (last accessed February 06, 2022).
32. Guttmacher Institute. Abortion Policy in the Absence of Roe. Washington DC; 2022. Available at www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-policy-absence-roe (last accessed March 04, 2022).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
Copyright 2023, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers.
History
Published online: 10 March 2023
Published in print: March 2023
Published ahead of print: 19 July 2022
Accepted: 7 May 2022
Revision received: 29 April 2022
Received: 4 March 2022
Authors
Authors' Contributions
Conceptualization, formal analysis, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, and visualization by K.R.; methodology, software, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing—review and editing, and project administration by J.B.-L.; conceptualization, writing—review and editing, and supervision by T.O.; writing—review and editing and project administration by Z.M.; writing—review and editing, supervision, and funding acquisition by A.N.; conceptualization, methodology, software, formal analysis, data curation, writing—review and editing, analysis, and supervision by A.N.T.; conceptualization, investigation, resources, writing—review and editing, supervision, project administration, and funding acquisition by D.B.
Disclosure Statement
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Funding Information
This study was supported by an Anonymous Foundation. The funder had no involvement in study design, data collection, analysis, or data interpretation, nor in article writing or the decision to submit the article for publication. Grant number G402194.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citation
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.
View Options
Access content
To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.⚠ Society Access
If you are a member of a society that has access to this content please log in via your society website and then return to this publication.