White Kari, Grossman Daniel, Stevenson Amanda Jean, Hopkins Kristine, Potter Joseph E
Texas Policy Evaluation Project, 305 E. 23rd Street, Stop G1800, Austin, TX, 78712; Department of Health Care Organization and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1720 2nd Ave. South RPHB 320, Birmingham, AL, 35294.
Texas Policy Evaluation Project, 305 E. 23rd Street, Stop G1800, Austin, TX, 78712; Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 1330 Broadway Suite 1100,Oakland, CA, 94612.
Contraception. 2017 Dec;96(6):381-387. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2017.08.007. Epub 2017 Sep 1.
The objective was to assess whether information about abortion safety and awareness of abortion laws affect voters' opinions about medically unnecessary abortion regulations.
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.
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).
Informational statements reduced perceptions that restrictive laws make abortion safer. Voters' prior awareness of the requirements also was associated with their beliefs.
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.
评估有关堕胎安全性的信息以及对堕胎法律的认知是否会影响选民对非医学必要堕胎法规的看法。
2016年5月至6月期间，我们通过简单随机分配，将1200名得克萨斯州选民随机分为两组，一组在关于堕胎法律的在线调查中接收关于门诊堕胎护理安全性的信息，另一组不接收。我们比较了接收安全信息与对近期限制措施的认知以及对堕胎设施的门诊手术中心（ASC）要求和医生的医院准入特权要求会使堕胎更安全这一信念之间的关联。我们使用泊松回归，并对政治派别和对堕胎的看法进行了调整。
在1200名接受调查的参与者中，1183人有完整数据可供分析：信息组612人，对照组571人。总体而言，信息组中有259人（46%），对照组中有298人（56%）认为ASC要求会提高堕胎安全性（p = 0.008）；信息组中有230人（41%），对照组中有285人（54%）认为准入特权会使堕胎更安全（p < 0.001）。经过多变量调整后，信息组报告ASC（患病率比[PR]：0.82；95%置信区间[CI]：0.72 - 0.94）和准入特权要求（PR：0.76；95% CI：0.65 - 0.88）会提高安全性的可能性较小。自认为是保守派共和党的参与者如果听说了这些规定，比不知道这些规定时更有可能报告ASC（82%）和准入特权要求（83%）会使堕胎更安全（ASC：52%；准入特权：47%；所有p < 0.001）。
信息陈述降低了人们认为限制性法律会使堕胎更安全的看法。选民对这些要求的先前认知也与他们的信念有关。
信息传达可以改变关于堕胎安全性的毫无科学依据的观点，并可能减少对限制性法律的支持。由于对堕胎法律的先前认知并不能确保对其对安全性影响的准确了解，通过尽早传播有关新法规的信息来覆盖广大受众很重要。
