Cargando…

Access to Reproductive Health Services Among People With Disabilities

IMPORTANCE: People with disabilities face inequitable access to reproductive health (RH) services, yet the national prevalence of barriers to access experienced across disability types and statuses is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the national prevalence of barriers to RH access experienced by peopl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Biggs, M. Antonia, Schroeder, Rosalyn, Casebolt, M. Tara, Laureano, Bianca I., Wilson-Beattie, Robin L., Ralph, Lauren J., Kaller, Shelly, Adler, Aliza, Gichane, Margaret W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Medical Association 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10687653/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38019515
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.44877
_version_ 1785152017587503104
author Biggs, M. Antonia
Schroeder, Rosalyn
Casebolt, M. Tara
Laureano, Bianca I.
Wilson-Beattie, Robin L.
Ralph, Lauren J.
Kaller, Shelly
Adler, Aliza
Gichane, Margaret W.
author_facet Biggs, M. Antonia
Schroeder, Rosalyn
Casebolt, M. Tara
Laureano, Bianca I.
Wilson-Beattie, Robin L.
Ralph, Lauren J.
Kaller, Shelly
Adler, Aliza
Gichane, Margaret W.
author_sort Biggs, M. Antonia
collection PubMed
description IMPORTANCE: People with disabilities face inequitable access to reproductive health (RH) services, yet the national prevalence of barriers to access experienced across disability types and statuses is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the national prevalence of barriers to RH access experienced by people with disabilities. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study analyzed results of an online probability-based national survey of RH experiences that was conducted from December 2021 to January 2022. The national sample consisted of English- and Spanish-speaking panel members of a market research firm. Panelists were invited to participate in a survey on their RH experiences and opinions. These participants were aged 15 to 49 years and assigned female at birth (AFAB). Weighted proportions were estimated, and bivariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess associations between disability status and barriers to accessing RH services. EXPOSURE: Using 5 of the 6 Washington Group Short Set on Functioning items, 8 dichotomous disability indicators were created: (1) vision, (2) hearing, (3) mobility, (4) activities of daily living, (5) communication, (6) overall disability status (a lot or more difficulty functioning in ≥1 domain), (7) some difficulty functioning (below the disability threshold; some or more difficulty functioning in ≥1 domain), and (8) multiple disabilities (a lot or more difficulty functioning in ≥2 domains). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Number and types of barriers (logistical, access, cost, privacy, and interpersonal relationship) to accessing RH services in the past 3 years. RESULTS: After exclusion, the final sample included 6956 people AFAB, with a mean (SD) age of 36.0 (8.3) years. Of these participants, 8.5% (95% CI, 7.6%-9.5%) met the disability threshold. Participants with disabilities compared with those without disabilities were disproportionately more likely to be non-Hispanic Black (18.8% [95% CI, 14.4%-24.1%] vs 13.2% [95% CI, 11.9%-14.5%]) or Hispanic or Latinx (completed survey in English: 18.1% [95% CI, 14.0%-23.0%] vs 14.6% [95% CI, 13.3%-16.0%]; completed survey in Spanish: 8.9% [95% CI, 6.2%-12.8%] vs 6.2% [95% CI, 5.4%-7.1%]) individuals, to identify as LGBTQAI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer [or questioning], asexual [or allied], intersex; 16.4% [95% CI, 12.3%-21.6%] vs 11.8% [95% CI, 10.6%-13.1%]), to live below the federal poverty level (27.3% [95% CI, 22.3%-32.8%] vs 10.7% [95% CI, 9.7%-11.9%]), and to ever experienced medical mistreatment (49.6% [95% CI, 43.7%-55.5%] vs 36.5% [95% CI, 34.8%-38.2%]). Among those who had ever tried to access RH services (n = 6027), people with disabilities vs without disabilities were more likely to experience barriers (69.0% [95% CI, 62.9%-74.5%] vs 43.0% [95% CI, 41.2%-44.9%]), which were most often logistical (50.7%; 95% CI, 44.2%-57.2%) and access (49.9%; 95% CI, 43.4%-56.4%) barriers. The disability domains with the highest proportion of people who experienced 3 or more barriers in the past 3 years included activities of daily living (75.3%; 95% CI, 61.1%-85.6%), communication (65.1%; 95% CI, 49.5%-78.1%), and multiple (59.9%; 95% CI, 45.6%-72.7%) disabilities. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cross-sectional study found large disparities in access to RH services among people AFAB with disabilities. Findings indicated a need to alleviate barriers to RH care, including improving the transportation infrastructure and reinforcing patient-centered approaches that engender inclusivity in health care settings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10687653
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher American Medical Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106876532023-12-01 Access to Reproductive Health Services Among People With Disabilities Biggs, M. Antonia Schroeder, Rosalyn Casebolt, M. Tara Laureano, Bianca I. Wilson-Beattie, Robin L. Ralph, Lauren J. Kaller, Shelly Adler, Aliza Gichane, Margaret W. JAMA Netw Open Original Investigation IMPORTANCE: People with disabilities face inequitable access to reproductive health (RH) services, yet the national prevalence of barriers to access experienced across disability types and statuses is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the national prevalence of barriers to RH access experienced by people with disabilities. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study analyzed results of an online probability-based national survey of RH experiences that was conducted from December 2021 to January 2022. The national sample consisted of English- and Spanish-speaking panel members of a market research firm. Panelists were invited to participate in a survey on their RH experiences and opinions. These participants were aged 15 to 49 years and assigned female at birth (AFAB). Weighted proportions were estimated, and bivariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess associations between disability status and barriers to accessing RH services. EXPOSURE: Using 5 of the 6 Washington Group Short Set on Functioning items, 8 dichotomous disability indicators were created: (1) vision, (2) hearing, (3) mobility, (4) activities of daily living, (5) communication, (6) overall disability status (a lot or more difficulty functioning in ≥1 domain), (7) some difficulty functioning (below the disability threshold; some or more difficulty functioning in ≥1 domain), and (8) multiple disabilities (a lot or more difficulty functioning in ≥2 domains). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Number and types of barriers (logistical, access, cost, privacy, and interpersonal relationship) to accessing RH services in the past 3 years. RESULTS: After exclusion, the final sample included 6956 people AFAB, with a mean (SD) age of 36.0 (8.3) years. Of these participants, 8.5% (95% CI, 7.6%-9.5%) met the disability threshold. Participants with disabilities compared with those without disabilities were disproportionately more likely to be non-Hispanic Black (18.8% [95% CI, 14.4%-24.1%] vs 13.2% [95% CI, 11.9%-14.5%]) or Hispanic or Latinx (completed survey in English: 18.1% [95% CI, 14.0%-23.0%] vs 14.6% [95% CI, 13.3%-16.0%]; completed survey in Spanish: 8.9% [95% CI, 6.2%-12.8%] vs 6.2% [95% CI, 5.4%-7.1%]) individuals, to identify as LGBTQAI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer [or questioning], asexual [or allied], intersex; 16.4% [95% CI, 12.3%-21.6%] vs 11.8% [95% CI, 10.6%-13.1%]), to live below the federal poverty level (27.3% [95% CI, 22.3%-32.8%] vs 10.7% [95% CI, 9.7%-11.9%]), and to ever experienced medical mistreatment (49.6% [95% CI, 43.7%-55.5%] vs 36.5% [95% CI, 34.8%-38.2%]). Among those who had ever tried to access RH services (n = 6027), people with disabilities vs without disabilities were more likely to experience barriers (69.0% [95% CI, 62.9%-74.5%] vs 43.0% [95% CI, 41.2%-44.9%]), which were most often logistical (50.7%; 95% CI, 44.2%-57.2%) and access (49.9%; 95% CI, 43.4%-56.4%) barriers. The disability domains with the highest proportion of people who experienced 3 or more barriers in the past 3 years included activities of daily living (75.3%; 95% CI, 61.1%-85.6%), communication (65.1%; 95% CI, 49.5%-78.1%), and multiple (59.9%; 95% CI, 45.6%-72.7%) disabilities. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cross-sectional study found large disparities in access to RH services among people AFAB with disabilities. Findings indicated a need to alleviate barriers to RH care, including improving the transportation infrastructure and reinforcing patient-centered approaches that engender inclusivity in health care settings. American Medical Association 2023-11-29 /pmc/articles/PMC10687653/ /pubmed/38019515 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.44877 Text en Copyright 2023 Biggs MA et al. JAMA Network Open. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.
spellingShingle Original Investigation
Biggs, M. Antonia
Schroeder, Rosalyn
Casebolt, M. Tara
Laureano, Bianca I.
Wilson-Beattie, Robin L.
Ralph, Lauren J.
Kaller, Shelly
Adler, Aliza
Gichane, Margaret W.
Access to Reproductive Health Services Among People With Disabilities
title Access to Reproductive Health Services Among People With Disabilities
title_full Access to Reproductive Health Services Among People With Disabilities
title_fullStr Access to Reproductive Health Services Among People With Disabilities
title_full_unstemmed Access to Reproductive Health Services Among People With Disabilities
title_short Access to Reproductive Health Services Among People With Disabilities
title_sort access to reproductive health services among people with disabilities
topic Original Investigation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10687653/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38019515
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.44877
work_keys_str_mv AT biggsmantonia accesstoreproductivehealthservicesamongpeoplewithdisabilities
AT schroederrosalyn accesstoreproductivehealthservicesamongpeoplewithdisabilities
AT caseboltmtara accesstoreproductivehealthservicesamongpeoplewithdisabilities
AT laureanobiancai accesstoreproductivehealthservicesamongpeoplewithdisabilities
AT wilsonbeattierobinl accesstoreproductivehealthservicesamongpeoplewithdisabilities
AT ralphlaurenj accesstoreproductivehealthservicesamongpeoplewithdisabilities
AT kallershelly accesstoreproductivehealthservicesamongpeoplewithdisabilities
AT adleraliza accesstoreproductivehealthservicesamongpeoplewithdisabilities
AT gichanemargaretw accesstoreproductivehealthservicesamongpeoplewithdisabilities