Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA.
Department of Health Policy and Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.
Health Serv Res. 2023 Aug;58(4):781-791. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.14156. Epub 2023 Apr 9.
To examine the effects of a comprehensive contraceptive access reform, Delaware Contraceptive Access Now, on abortion-one of the most common outcomes of unintended pregnancy.
We used abortion data by state of residence from the Abortion Surveillance System, published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Our data covers 5 years prior to (2010-2014) and 5 years after the intervention (2015-2019).
We used synthetic control methods to estimate program effects. Our design compares Delaware to a weighted average of 45 control states ("synthetic Delaware"), where the quality of the comparison is assessed by its similarity to Delaware in pre-period outcome levels and trends.
DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Not applicable. We relied on secondary sources.
We did not find statistically significant evidence that the program reduced abortion rates (0.61 fewer abortions per 1000 women, p-value = 0.74) on average, during the intervention period. The treatment effects were slightly larger in 2016 and 2017 (1.97 fewer abortions per 1000 women but not statistically significant) and attenuated in 2018 and 2019. This does not rule out program benefits in easing barriers to contraceptive methods or in reducing unplanned births. However, findings do suggest that increasing contraceptive access might not be an adequate substitute for restricted abortion access resulting from Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
Our results suggest that comprehensive efforts to improve contraceptive access may not reduce the need for accessible and affordable abortion care.
研究全面的避孕措施获取改革——特拉华州避孕措施获取法案(Delaware Contraceptive Access Now)对堕胎的影响,堕胎是意外怀孕的最常见后果之一。
我们使用了疾病控制与预防中心(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)发布的《堕胎监测系统》(Abortion Surveillance System)中按居住州划分的堕胎数据。我们的数据涵盖了干预前的 5 年(2010-2014 年)和干预后的 5 年(2015-2019 年)。
我们使用综合控制方法来估计项目效果。我们的设计将特拉华州与 45 个控制州的加权平均值(“合成特拉华州”)进行比较,通过比较在前期结果水平和趋势上与特拉华州的相似性来评估比较的质量。
数据收集/提取方法:不适用。我们依赖于二手资料。
我们没有发现该项目在干预期间平均降低堕胎率的统计学证据(每 1000 名妇女减少 0.61 例堕胎,p 值=0.74)。在 2016 年和 2017 年,治疗效果略大(每 1000 名妇女减少 1.97 例堕胎,但没有统计学意义),而在 2018 年和 2019 年则减弱。这不能排除该项目在减轻避孕方法获取障碍或减少意外怀孕方面的益处。然而,研究结果确实表明,增加避孕措施的获取可能不足以替代多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案(Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization)限制堕胎获取的影响。
我们的结果表明,全面努力改善避孕措施的获取可能无法减少对可及和负担得起的堕胎护理的需求。