CRiSIS: CPC Regulations in States – Implications for Services - A Mystery Caller StudyVinekar, Kavita (2020) CRiSIS: CPC Regulations in States – Implications for Services - A Mystery Caller Study. Master Essay, University of Pittsburgh. This is the latest version of this item.
AbstractObjectives: Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) provide pregnancy-related services with the intent of dissuading people from seeking abortions. Half of states support CPCs through funding or mandatory referrals. We performed a national mystery caller study to compare CPC and AF early pregnancy service availability in supportive and non-supportive CPC environments. Methods: We conducted a mystery caller study of a national sample of CPCs and their nearest AFs, stratified by state NARAL CPC policy designation. The primary outcome was the difference in wait time to first available pregnancy confirmation appointment between CPCs and their closest AF. Secondary outcomes included call characteristics, ultrasound and pregnancy test availability and cost. The primary exposure was CPC policy designation. Using StataSE v15, we performed Fischer’s Exact tests and two-sided T-tests to compare outcomes of interest. Results: Trained research assistants successfully called 445 CPCs and their nearest 445 AFs between May and December 2019. There was no significant difference in mean wait time to early pregnancy appointment between CPCs and AFs in disparate CPC legislative climates (1.96 days in CPC supportive states vs 2.09 days in CPC non-supportive states, p=0.08). Mean wait time to pregnancy confirmation appointment was 0.9 days for CPCs and 3.3 for AFs (p<0.0001). Both CPCs and AFs commonly offered pregnancy confirmation visits, but CPCs were significantly more likely to do so (98.9 vs 94.8%, p=0.002). CPCs were also more likely to provide same-day appointments, and free pregnancy testing. AFs were more likely to offer ultrasound for pregnancy confirmation (94.3% AFs vs 66.5% CPCs, p<0.0001). Conclusions: State policy climate around CPCs was not associated with differences in CPC or AF access measures (wait time to first appointment, service availability, or cost). However, CPC early pregnancy services were overall more accessible by these measures than AF services in all legislative climates. The increased accessibility of CPCs (non-healthcare facilities posing as clinics to dissuade women from seeking abortions) poses a public health challenge, which may threaten and delay access to healthcare facilities providing evidence-based pregnancy options counseling and abortion services. Share
Details
Available Versions of this Item
MetricsMonthly Views for the past 3 yearsPlum AnalyticsActions (login required)
|
![[feed]](/images/feed-icon-32x32.png){kind=icon}