Cargando…
Contraceptive care in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic: A social media survey of contraceptive access, telehealth use and telehealth quality()()
OBJECTIVES: To examine demographic, socioeconomic, and regional differences in contraceptive access, differences between telehealth and in-person contraception visits, and telehealth quality in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: We surveyed reproductive-age women about con...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9985539/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36871620 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2023.110000 |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVES: To examine demographic, socioeconomic, and regional differences in contraceptive access, differences between telehealth and in-person contraception visits, and telehealth quality in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: We surveyed reproductive-age women about contraception visits during the COVID-19 pandemic via social media in July 2020 and January 2021. We used multivariable regression to examine relationships between age, racial/ethnic identity, educational attainment, income, insurance type, region, and COVID-19 related hardship, and ability to obtain a contraceptive appointment, telehealth vs in-person visits, and telehealth quality scores. RESULTS: Among 2031 respondents seeking a contraception visit, 1490 (73.4%) reported any visit, of which 530 (35.6%) were telehealth. In adjusted analyses, lower odds of any visit was associated with Hispanic/Latinx and Mixed race/Other identity (aOR 0.59 [0.37–0.94], aOR 0.36 [0.22–0.59], respectively), the South, Midwest, Northeast (aOR 0.63 [0.47–0.85], aOR 0.64 [0.46–0.90], aOR 0.52 [CI 0.36–0.75], respectively), no insurance (aOR 0.63 [0.43–0.91]), greater COVID-19 hardship (aOR 0.52 [0.31–0.87]), and earlier pandemic timing (January 2021 vs July 2020 aOR 2.14 [1.69–2.70]). Respondents from the Midwest and South had lower odds of telehealth vs in-person care (aOR 0.63 [0.44–0.88], aOR 0.54 [0.40–0.72], respectively). Hispanic/Latinx respondents and those in the Midwest had lower odds of high telehealth quality (aOR 0.37 [0.17–0.80], aOR 0.58 [0.35–0.95], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We found inequities in contraceptive care access, less telehealth use for contraception visits in the South and Midwest, and lower telehealth quality among Hispanic/Latinx people during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future research should focus on telehealth access, quality, and patients’ preferences. IMPLICATIONS: Historically marginalized groups have faced disproportionate barriers to contraceptive care, and telehealth for contraceptive care has not been employed equitably during the COVID-19 pandemic. Though telehealth has the potential to improve access to care, inequitable implementation could exacerbate existing disparities. |
---|