Conducting Research in the New Abortion Care Policy Landscape
Paula M. Lantz
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.30000
2024-08-30
JAMA Network Open
Abstract:The public policy chaos fueled by the June 2022 Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision has created a critical need for objective and high-quality abortion policy evaluation research. Stevenson and Root 1 rose to this challenge by conducting a convincing analysis of recent trends in maternal mortality, motivated in part by pro-life advocate claims that the recent observed decline in pregnancy-related death is the counterintuitive result of more restrictive abortion policies post– Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health . Using 5.75 years of monthly national maternal mortality data from January 2018 through September 2023, their decomposition approach considered spikes in mortality from COVID-19 and potential seasonal fluctuations in maternal deaths. The findings clearly demonstrate that the observed decline in maternal mortality after the 2022 Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health ruling is the result of a resolution of the COVID-19 mortality shock, not because of new restrictive abortion laws being passed by state legislatures. This work is among the first published analyses of the potential effects of restrictive state abortion policies in the post– Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health aftermath. Additional research on a wide array of potential outcomes needs to be conducted to fully understand the range and magnitude of the outcomes of state-level abortion policies. Based on a plethora of prior research regarding unintended pregnancy and abortion, reduced access to abortion care is thought to decrease the incidence of abortion but also increase the risk and incidence of myriad adverse maternal and infant health outcomes. 2 Restrictive abortion policies are also expected to increase child poverty, increase the number of families that experience serious financial instability or hardship, and put additional pressures on underresourced social welfare systems. 2 In addition, there is great concern that restrictive abortion laws will negatively impact physician choice regarding where to train or practice and the availability of obstetric care across states. 3 After major public policy reforms, it is common for stakeholders—proponents and opponents alike—to look for positive and negative policy effects immediately. While easy to conduct, armchair policy impact pontification is fraught with error and false conclusions. Identifying the impact of public policy change is not a simple task. Besides the obvious cautionary chant that correlation is not causation, evaluating the degree to which public policy shifts are having both intended and unintended consequences requires sound approaches to methods, timely access to quality data, and sophisticated statistical analyses that control for underlying trends and confounding factors. 4 Furthermore, there is often discussion and debate among researchers themselves regarding how to investigate the effects of important public health, medical, and health care interventions and policies. The convening of expert panels or working groups to provide guidance regarding research priorities and best approaches to research design, data or measurement, and analyses on specific topics is long-standing. It can provide essential scientific direction to emerging issues, including ones fraught with political controversy. For example, the National Academy of Medicine has convened many methods-focused committees in challenging areas of research, including reports such as Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence (2013) and A Framework for Assessing Mortality and Morbidity After Large-Scale Disasters (2020). There is a crucial need for investment in scientific discourse regarding how best to investigate the wide range of potential medical, public health, and social welfare effects of public policy related to abortion care. 5 An organization with authority and resources, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, or a foundation with a health-related mission, should quickly convene an ad hoc panel of experts to produce a nonpartisan, nonideological consensus document that provides guidance for objective public policy evaluation research associated with state-level restrictive abortion care policies. Such a panel could help create a priority research agenda for funders and provide guidance regarding data or measurement, research designs, statistical analyses approaches, and other methodology issues. This includes guidance for taking advantage of state differences in policy design, timing, and state contextual factors (eg, state Medicaid policy) and for subpopulation analyses since restrictive abortion laws are likely to have differential effects based on race or ethnicity, age, socioeconomic status, and geography. In summary, the analysis by S -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal