Person-centered contraceptive access benefits reproductive autonomy, sexual wellbeing, menstrual regulation, and other preventive health. However, contraceptive access varies by social and geographic position, with policies either perpetuating or alleviating health inequities. We describe geographic and time-trend variation in an index from fewer (less expansive) to greater (more expansive) aggregation of U.S. state-level contraceptive access policies across 50 states and Washington, D.C. (collectively, states) from 2006 to 2021. We collected data from primary and secondary sources on 23 policies regulating contraceptive education, insurance coverage, minor's rights, provider authority, and more. As of 2021, the most enacted policies expanded contraceptive access through: 1) prescribing authority for nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives (n = 50, 98 % of states), and clinical nurse specialists (n = 38, 75 %); 2) Medicaid expansion (n = 38, 75 %); 3) prescription method insurance coverage (n = 30, 59 %); and 4) dispensing authority for nurse practitioners and certified nurse-midwives (n = 29, 57 %). The average overall U.S. policy index value increased in expansiveness from 6.9 in 2006 to 8.6 in 2021. States in the West and Northeast regions had the most expansive contraceptive access landscapes (average index values of 9.0 and 8.2, respectively) and grew more expansive over time (increased by 4–5 policies). The Midwest and South had least expansive landscapes (average index values of 5.0 and 6.1, respectively). Regions with more expansive sexual and reproductive health policy environments further expanded access, whereas least expansive environments were maintained. More nuanced understanding of how contraceptive policy diffusion affects health outcomes and equity is needed to inform public health advocacy and law making.

Refugee women have poor outcomes and low utilization of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services, which may be driven by access to and quality of SRH services at their resettled destinations. While healthcare providers offer valuable insights into these topics, little research has explored United States (U.S.) providers' experiences. To fill this literature gap, we investigate U.S. providers' perspectives of healthcare system-related factors influencing refugee women's access and utilization of SRH services. Between July and December 2019, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 17 providers serving refugee women in metropolitan Atlanta in the state of Georgia (United States). We used convenience and snowball sampling for recruitment. We inquired about system-related resources, facilitators, and barriers influencing SRH services access and utilization. Two coders analyzed the data using a qualitative thematic approach. We found that transportation availability was crucial to refugee women's SRH services access. Providers noted a tension between refugee women's preferred usage of informal interpretation assistance (e.g., family and friends) and healthcare providers' desire for more formal interpretation services. Providers reported a lack of funding and human resources to offer comprehensive SRH services as well as several challenges with using a referral system for women to get SRH care in other systems. Culturally and linguistically-concordant patient navigators were successful at helping refugee women navigate the healthcare system and addressing language barriers. We discussed implications for future research and practice to improve refugee women's SRH care access and utilization. In particular, our findings underscore multilevel constraints of clinics providing SRH care to refugee women and highlight the importance of transportation services and acceptable interpretation services. While understudied, the use of patient navigators holds potential for increasing refugee women's SRH care access and utilization. Patient navigation can both effectively address language-related challenges for refugee women and help them navigate the healthcare system for SRH. Future research should explore organizational and external factors that can facilitate or hinder the implementation of patient navigators for refugee women's SRH care.

Traditional family planning research has excluded Black and Latinx leaders, and little is known about medication abortion (MA) among racial/ethnic minorities, although it is an increasingly vital reproductive health service, particularly after the fall of Roe v. Wade. Reproductive justice (RJ) community-based organisation (CBO) SisterLove led a study on Black and Latinx women’s MA perceptions and experiences in Georgia. From April 2019 to December 2020, we conducted key informant interviews with 20 abortion providers and CBO leaders and 32 in-depth interviews and 6 focus groups (n = 30) with Black and Latinx women. We analysed data thematically using a team-based, iterative approach of coding, memo-ing, and discussion. Participants described multilevel barriers to and strategies for MA access, wishing that “the process had a bit more humanity … [it] should be more holistic.” Barriers included (1) sociocultural factors (intersectional oppression, intersectional stigma, and medical experimentation); (2) national and state policies; (3) clinic- and provider-related factors (lack of diverse clinic staff, long waiting times); and (4) individual-level factors (lack of knowledge and social support). Suggested solutions included (1) social media campaigns and story-sharing; (2) RJ-based policy advocacy; (3) diversifying clinic staff, offering flexible scheduling and fees, community integration of abortion, and RJ abortion funds; and (4) social support (including abortion doulas) and comprehensive sex education. Findings suggest that equitable MA access for Black and Latinx communities in the post-Roe era will require multi-level intervention, informed by community-led evidence production; holistic, de-medicalised, and human rights-based care models; and intersectional RJ policy advocacy.

INTRODUCTION: While reproductive injustice indicators are improving globally, they are worsening in the United States particularly for Black and other marginalized communities. Eugenics and obstetric violence against low-income and communities of color create well-founded distrust of sexual and reproductive health (SRH). Transformational, reparative ways of conducting SRH research are needed. PROPOSED PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY-LED RESEARCH FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE: Drawing on our collective experience as reproductive justice leaders, SRH researchers, and clinicians, we propose the following principles of community-led research for reproductive justice: 1) Center the marginalized community members most affected by SRH inequities as leaders of research; 2) Facilitate equitable, collaborative partnership through all phases of SRH research; 3) Honor multiple ways of knowing (experiential, cultural, empirical) for knowledge justice and cross-directional learning across the team; 4) Build on strengths (not deficits) within the community; 5) Implement the tenets of reproductive justice including structural-level analysis and the human rights framework; 6) Prioritize disseminating useful findings to community members first then to other audiences; 7) Take action to address social and reproductive injustices. SISTERLOVE'S COMMUNITY-LED GEORGIA MEDICATION ABORTION PROJECT: We offer the community-led Georgia Medication Abortion (GAMA) Project by reproductive justice organization SisterLove from 2018-2022 as a case study to demonstrate these principles along with the strengths and challenges of reproductive justice research. DISCUSSION: Community-led reproductive justice research offers innovative and transformational methods for truly advancing SRH in an era of increasing policy restrictions and decreasing access to care. Yet existing funding, research administrative, and publishing systems will require structural change.

Decision-making regarding the outcome of a pregnancy may include participation of the woman herself, her sexual partner, parents, family, and/or community. This paper examines who had the most say in the outcome of young Ghanaian women’s last pregnancy and whether this correlated with her level of reproductive autonomy (RA). We analysed cross-sectional data from 380 previously pregnant young women in urban Ghana. We measured communication and decision-making RA using modified scales ranging from 3 (low RA) to 12 (high RA). We tested unadjusted associations between the RA sub-scales and who made the pregnancy decision (self, partner, both together, or someone else) and used multinomial regression models to understand these associations when controlling for sociodemographic, reproductive history, and social context variables. In final models, a one-point increase in decision-making RA was associated with an adjusted relative risk ratio of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.66–0.93; p = 0.006) of partner having the most say as compared to the woman having the most say. The communication RA scale was not associated. Programmes that increase RA may be effective in increasing women’s rights to execute decisions about reproductive health and outcomes. Future research should explore this notion and the role of pregnancy disclosure in this relationship.

Background: To examine racial/ethnic and educational inequities in the relationship between state-level restrictive abortion policies and adverse birth outcomes from 2005 to 2015 in the United States. Methods: Using a state-level abortion restrictiveness index comprised of 18 restrictive abortion policies, we conducted a retrospective longitudinal analysis examining whether race/ethnicity and education level moderated the relationship between the restrictiveness index and individual-level probabilities of preterm birth (PTB) and low birthweight (LBW). Data were obtained from the 2005–2015 National Center for Health Statistics Period Linked Live Birth-Infant Death Files and analyzed with linear probability models adjusted for individual- and state-level characteristics and state and year fixed-effects. Results: Among 2,250,000 live births, 269,253 (12.0%) were PTBs and 182,960 (8.1%) were LBW. On average, states had approximately seven restrictive abortion policies enacted from 2005 to 2015. Black individuals experienced increased probability of PTB with additional exposure to restrictive abortion policies compared to non-Black individuals. Similarly, those with less than a college degree experienced increased probability of LBW with additional exposure to restrictive abortion policies compared to college graduates. For all analyses, inequities worsened as state environments grew increasingly restrictive. Conclusion: Findings demonstrate that Black individuals at all educational levels and those with fewer years of education disproportionately experienced adverse birth outcomes associated with restrictive abortion policies. Restrictive abortion policies may compound existing racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and intersecting racial/ethnic and socioeconomic perinatal and infant health inequities.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Studies of Anti-Müllerian Hormone (AMH) rely upon serum measures and clinical samples of older reproductive-aged women intended/attempting pregnancy, with known fertility issues or medical morbidities. We explored the utility of minimally invasive AMH as a measure of fecundability in population-based reproductive health research. METHODS: We analyzed baseline data from 191 participants in a pilot, longitudinal cohort study, the Young Women's Stress Study. Using an integrated biosocial design, we collected interviewer-administered surveys on demographic, psychosocial, health, and method feasibility/acceptability information and finger-stick capillary dried blood spots (DBS). We used descriptive and bivariate statistics (correlation, T-tests, ANOVA) to estimate method feasibility/acceptability and unadjusted AMH mean concentrations overall and across sociodemographic, reproductive, and health covariates. RESULTS: AMH concentrations ranged from 1.02 to 22.23 ng/mL, with a mean of 5.66 ng/mL. AMH concentrations were associated with current hormonal contraceptive use, menstrual cycle frequency, and irregular menstrual patterns, but not with other known correlates. Most participants stated the DBS method was comfortable (81%) and would be likely to provide it again (88%). CONCLUSIONS: While these pilot data suggest AMH fell within normal range and our DBS methods were acceptable/feasible, the broader question of its usefulness for population reproductive health research remains unanswered. Larger, longitudinal studies are needed to validate AMH against time-to-pregnancy and gold standard measures in young healthy samples and across different sociodemographic groups. Public health and social scientists should consider the resource costs of AMH, ethical issues, and risks of (over)interpretation, with a reproductive justice and human rights frame in mind.

Perhaps among the most notable achievements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the requirement that private health insurance plans cover contraceptive counseling, services, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved methods without cost sharing. Since 2013, decreased out-of-pocket medical expenditures for contraceptives have benefited millions of insured women in the U.S.1,2 Highly effective long-acting reversible methods (LARCs), including intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants, have now become more readily accessible options for many more with the ACA’s elimination of high up-front insertion procedure and device costs. In tandem, increased coverage (greater prescription supply, reduced co-pays) of oral contraceptive pills and other refillable forms as a result of the ACA has removed important financial barriers to more commonly used methods. Ultimately, the hope is that the contraceptive mandate will increase access to effective contraception, thereby supporting planned pregnancies and improving outcomes for women, their families, and society. Unfortunately, ongoing multilevel challenges to the ACA’s implementation continue to preclude many women from receiving their full reproductive healthcare benefits.1,3 These challenges may not be widely understood among women or even health professionals and have received little mainstream attention in lieu of other timely, important, and highly sensitive policy debates around Zika virus, religious exemption, congressional fights to end Planned Parenthood funding, and legislation restricting access to abortion.4,5 Meanwhile, though, the general public and healthcare work force is still grappling with the meaning of “contraceptive mandate” and nature of services that comprise preventive family planning care. Additionally, the political and ideological “blurring” of contraception and abortion, which may not reflect women’s views of and priorities for reproductive health policy, has distracted and disserviced women by precluding much needed education on the ACA and perpetuating unfavorable views of it.6–8 New results from the Pew Research Center indicate that 54% of Americans disapprove of the ACA.9 Thus, increasing awareness of several key woman-, healthcare systems–, and policy-level issues with the ACA and contraception appears warranted. The following paragraphs summarize these multilevel issues and offer recommendations for how women, health systems players, and health policymakers may fully leverage the ACA’s contraceptive mandate (or expand upon it) to improve the status of women’s reproductive health and health care in the U.S.

Objective Using our previously developed and tested Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) Stigma Scale, we investigated factors associated with perceived SRH stigma among adolescent girls in Ghana. Methods We drew upon data from our survey study of 1,063 females 15-24yrs recruited from community- and clinic-based sites in two Ghanaian cities. Our Adolescent SRH Stigma Scale comprised 20 items and 3 sub-scales (Internalized, Enacted, Lay Attitudes) to measure stigma occurring with sexual activity, contraceptive use, pregnancy, abortion and family planning service use. We assessed relationships between a comprehensive set of demographic, health and social factors and SRH Stigma with multi-level multivariable linear regression models. Results In unadjusted bivariate analyses, compared to their counterparts, SRH stigma scores were higher among girls who were younger, Accra residents, Muslim, still in/dropped out of secondary school, unemployed, reporting excellent/very good health, not in a relationship, not sexually experienced, never received family planning services, never used contraception, but had been pregnant (all p-values < 0.05). In multivariable models, higher SRH stigma scores were associated with history of pregnancy (β = 1.53, CI = 0.51,2.56) and excellent/very good self-rated health (β = 0.89, CI = 0.20,1.58), while lower stigma scores were associated with older age (β = -0.17, 95%CI = -0.24,-0.09), higher educational attainment (β = -1.22, CI = -1.82,-0.63), and sexual intercourse experience (β = -1.32, CI = -2.10,-0.55). Conclusions Findings provide insight into factors contributing to SRH stigma among this young Ghanaian female sample. Further research disentangling the complex interrelationships between SRH stigma, health, and social context is needed to guide multi-level interventions to address SRH stigma and its causes and consequences for adolescents worldwide.

Safe and legal abortions are rarely practiced in the public health sector in Kenya, and rates of maternal mortality and morbidity from unsafe abortion is high. Little is known about women's experiences seeking and accessing abortion in informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya. Methods Seven focus group discussions were conducted with a total of 71 women and girls recruited from an informal settlement in Nairobi. The interview guide explored participants' perceptions of unplanned pregnancy, abortion, and access to sexual and reproductive health information in their community. Thematic analysis of the focus group transcripts was conducted using MAX QDA Release 12. Results Participants described a variety of factors that influence women's experiences with abortion in their communities. According to participants, limited knowledge of sexual and reproductive health information and lack of access to contraception led to unplanned pregnancy among women in their community. Participants cited stigma and loss of opportunities that women with unplanned pregnancies face as the primary reasons why women seek abortions. Participants articulated stigma as the predominant barrier women in their communities face to safe abortion. Other barriers, which were often interrelated to stigma, included lack of education about safe methods of abortion, perceived illegality of abortion, as well as limited access to services, fear of mistreatment, and mistrust of health providers and facilities. Conclusions Women in informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya face substantial barriers to regulating their fertility and lack access to safe abortion. Policy makers and reproductive health advocates should support programs that employ harm reduction strategies and increase women's knowledge of and access to medication abortion outside the formal healthcare system.