State Abortion Policy and Moral Distress Among Clinicians Providing Abortion After the Dobbs Decision
Katherine Rivlin,Marta Bornstein,Jocelyn Wascher,Abigail Norris Turner,Alison H Norris,Dana Howard
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.26248
2024-08-01
Abstract:Importance: Moral distress occurs when individuals feel powerless to do what they think is right, including when clinicians are prevented from providing health care they deem necessary. The loss of federal protections for abortion following the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision may place clinicians providing abortion at risk of experiencing moral distress, as many could face new legal and civil penalties for providing care in line with professional standards and that they perceive as necessary. Objective: To assess self-reported moral distress scores among abortion-providing clinicians following the Dobbs decision overall and by state-level abortion policy. Design, setting, and participants: This survey study, conducted from May to December 2023, included US abortion-providing clinicians (physicians, advanced practice clinicians, and nurses). A purposive electronic survey was disseminated nationally through professional listservs and snowball sampling. Exposure: Abortion policy in each respondent's state of practice (restrictive vs protective using classifications from the Guttmacher Institute). Main outcomes and measures: Using descriptive statistics and unadjusted and adjusted negative binomial regression models, the association between self-reported moral distress on the Moral Distress Thermometer (MDT), a validated psychometric tool that scores moral distress from 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible), and state abortion policy was examined. Results: Overall, 310 clinicians (271 [87.7%] women; mean [SD] age, 41.4 [9.7] years) completed 352 MDTs, with 206 responses (58.5%) from protective states and 146 (41.5%) from restrictive states. Reported moral distress scores ranged from 0 to 10 (median, 5) and were more than double for clinicians in restrictive compared with protective states (median, 8 [IQR, 6-9] vs 3 [IQR, 1-6]; P < .001). Respondents with higher moral distress scores included physicians compared with advanced practice clinicians (median, 6 [IQR, 3-8] vs 4 [IQR, 2-7]; P = .005), those practicing in free-standing abortion clinics compared with those practicing in hospitals (median, 6 [IQR, 3-8] vs 4 [IQR, 2-7]; P < .001), those no longer providing abortion care compared with those still providing abortion care (median, 8 [IQR, 4-9] vs 5 [IQR, 2-8]; P = .004), those practicing in loss states (states with the greatest decline in abortion volume since the Dobbs decision) compared with those in stable states (unadjusted incidence rate [IRR], 1.72 [95% CI, 1.55-1.92]; P < .001; adjusted IRR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.40-1.79]; P < .001), and those practicing in surge states (states with the greatest increase in abortion volume since the Dobbs decision) compared with those in stable states (unadjusted IRR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.11-1.46]; P < .001; adjusted IRR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.09-1.41]; P = .001). Conclusions and relevance: In this purposive national survey study of clinicians providing abortion, moral distress was elevated among all clinicians and more than twice as high among those practicing in states that restrict abortion compared with those in states that protect abortion. The findings suggest that structural changes addressing bans on necessary health care, such as federal protections for abortion, are needed at institutional, state, and federal policy levels to combat widespread moral distress.