Does information about abortion safety affect Texas voters' opinions about restrictive laws? A randomized study

Ohio survey data assessing perceptions of abortion safety

OBJECTIVE

Despite overwhelming data supporting the safety of abortion care in the U.S., public perceptions of abortion safety vary widely. While evidence suggests that the public overestimates abortion risk, few studies have analyzed why people think abortion is safe or unsafe.

STUDY DESIGN

Using data from the Ohio Survey of Women, a representative survey of women aged 18-44 years with a residential address in Ohio, we examined responses to two questions about abortion safety perceptions: the first asked respondents to rate abortion safety in Ohio, and the second asked respondents why they chose this rating of abortion safety. We analyzed these responses with inductive and deductive approaches.

RESULTS

There were 2,529 responses, of which 1,368 (54%) provided a response to the open-ended question about abortion safety. From this subset, 529 gave open-ended responses indicating that they perceive abortion as safe, with 47% attributing this perception to the procedure being performed by a professional in a regulated environment. In contrast, 370 gave open-ended responses indicating that they perceive abortion as unsafe; the most common explanations referred to health risks (19%) and that safety depends on pre-existing health conditions (19%).

CONCLUSION

Many participants perceived abortion as safe because it is performed by professionals in a clinical environment or because of personal experiences with abortion. Those perceiving a lack of safety provided more varied responses, including that abortion was dangerous due to a detrimental effect on mental health or protesters at abortion clinics.

How do women interpret abortion information they find online?

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess how women interpret the information they find online about the overall safety and risk of infertility associated with abortion and cesarean delivery (CD).

METHODS

We conducted an exploratory, prospective study tracking the internet searches of 100 reproductive-aged individuals who identify as women. We directed participants to search for information about either (1) whether surgical abortion or CD is safe or (2) the risk of infertility following surgical abortion or CD. Our data collection had 3 phases: baseline survey, directed internet search, and a postsearch survey. We analyzed participants' pre- and postsurvey responses using bivariate tests and analyzed within-subject changes. We evaluated the sites they visited based on expert ratings of site content based on trustworthiness and slant.

RESULTS

Women perceived abortion as safer and less likely to cause infertility after their web searches than before (70% perceived abortion in the United States as very/completely safe presearch vs 92% postsearch; p < 0.02). Women's perceptions about CD did not change. Participants sought information from web pages that experts largely deemed trustworthy and lacking in slant.

CONCLUSIONS

Women's perceptions about abortion safety and risk can be influenced by information they find online; perceptions about CD safety and risk may be less influenced by online information.

IMPLICATIONS

Disseminating high quality, user-friendly abortion information on highly ranked and easily findable websites can help women find evidence-based information and influence knowledge about abortion.

The Abortion Web Ecosystem: Cross-Sectional Analysis of Trustworthiness and Bias

Background

People use the internet as a primary source for learning about medical procedures and their associated safety profiles and risks. Although abortion is one of the most common procedures worldwide among women in their reproductive years, it is controversial and highly politicized. Substantial scientific evidence demonstrates that abortion is safe and does not increase a woman’s future risk for depressive disorders or infertility. The extent to which information found on the internet reflects these medical facts in a trustworthy and unbiased manner is not known.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to collate and describe the trustworthiness and political slant or bias of web-based information about abortion safety and risks of depression and infertility following abortion.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional study of internet websites using 3 search topics: (1) is abortion safe?, (2) does abortion cause depression?, and (3) does abortion cause infertility? We used the Google Adwords tool to identify the search terms most associated with those topics and Google’s search engine to generate databases of websites related to each topic. We then classified and rated each website in terms of content slant (pro-choice, neutral, anti-choice), clarity of slant (obvious, in-between, or difficult/can’t tell), trustworthiness (rating scale of 1-5, 5=most trustworthy), type (forum, feature, scholarly article, resource page, news article, blog, or video), and top-level domain (.com, .net, .org, .edu, .gov, or international domain). We compared website characteristics by search topic (safety, depression, or infertility) using bivariate tests. We summarized trustworthiness using the median and IQR, and we used box-and-whisker plots to visually compare trustworthiness by slant and domain type.

Results

Our search methods yielded a total of 111, 120, and 85 unique sites for safety, depression, and infertility, respectively. Of all the sites (n=316), 57.3% (181/316) were neutral, 35.4% (112/316) were anti-choice, and 7.3% (23/316) were pro-choice. The median trustworthiness score was 2.7 (IQR 1.7-3.7), which did not differ significantly across topics (P=.409). Anti-choice sites were less trustworthy (median score 1.3, IQR 1.0-1.7) than neutral (median score 3.3, IQR 2.7-4.0) and pro-choice (median score 3.7, IQR 3.3-4.3) sites. Anti-choice sites were also more likely to have slant clarity that was “difficult to tell” (41/112, 36.6%) compared with neutral (25/181, 13.8%) or pro-choice (4/23, 17.4%; P<.001) sites. A negative search term used for the topic of safety (eg, “risks”) produced sites with lower trustworthiness scores than search terms with the word “safety” (median score 1.7 versus 3.7, respectively; P<.001).

Conclusions

People seeking information about the safety and potential risks of abortion are likely to encounter a substantial amount of untrustworthy and slanted/biased abortion information. Anti-choice sites are prevalent, often difficult to identify as anti-choice, and less trustworthy than neutral or pro-choice sites. Web searches may lead the public to believe abortion is riskier than it is.

Women's knowledge of their state's abortion regulations. A national survey

Objectives

States vary significantly in their regulation of abortion. Misinformation about abortion is pervasive and propagated by state-mandated scripts that contain abortion myths. We sought to investigate women’s knowledge of abortion laws in their state. Our secondary objective was to describe women’s ability to discern myths about abortion from facts about abortion.

Study design

This was a cross-sectional study of English- and Spanish-speaking women aged 18–49 in the United States. We enrolled members of the GfK KnowledgePanel, a probability-based, nationally-representative online sample. Our primary outcome was the proportion of correct answers to 12 questions about laws regulating abortion in a respondent’s state. We asked five questions about common abortion myths. We used descriptive statistics to characterize performance on these measures and bivariate and multivariate modeling to identify risk factors for poor knowledge of state abortion laws.

Results

Of 2223 women contacted, 1057 (48%) completed the survey. The mean proportion of correct answers to 12 law questions was 18% (95% CI 17–20%). For three of five assessed myths, women endorsed myths about abortion over facts. Those who believe abortion should be illegal (aOR 2.18, CI 1.40–3.37), and those living in states with neutral or hostile state policies toward abortion (neutral aOR 1.99, CI 1.34–2.97; hostile aOR 1.6, CI 1.07–2.36) were at increased odds of poor law knowledge.

Conclusions

Women had low levels of knowledge about state abortion laws and commonly endorse abortion myths. Women’s knowledge of their state’s abortion laws was associated with personal views about abortion and their state policy environment.

Implications

Supporters of reproductive rights can use these results to show policy makers that their constituents are unlikely to know about laws being passed that may profoundly affect them. These findings underscore the potential benefit in correcting widely-held, medically-inaccurate beliefs about abortion so opinions about laws can be based on fact.