Evaluating the capacity of California's publicly funded universities to provide medication abortion

Sarah Raifman; Patricia Anderson; Shelly Kaller; Diane Tober; Daniel Grossman

doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2018.05.014

Evaluating the capacity of California's publicly funded universities to provide medication abortion

Contraception. 2018 Oct;98(4):306-311. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2018.05.014. Epub 2018 May 18.

Authors

Sarah Raifman¹, Patricia Anderson², Shelly Kaller³, Diane Tober⁴, Daniel Grossman⁵

Affiliations

¹ Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 1330 Broadway Suite 1100, Oakland, CA 94612, USA. Electronic address: Sarah.raifman@ucsf.edu.
² Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 1330 Broadway Suite 1100, Oakland, CA 94612, USA. Electronic address: Patricia.anderson@ucsf.edu.
³ Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 1330 Broadway Suite 1100, Oakland, CA 94612, USA. Electronic address: Shelly.kaller@ucsf.edu.
⁴ School of Nursing, Institute for Health Aging, University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California Street, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA. Electronic address: Diane.tober@ucsf.edu.
⁵ Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 1330 Broadway Suite 1100, Oakland, CA 94612, USA. Electronic address: Daniel.grossman@ucsf.edu.

PMID: 29778584
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2018.05.014

Abstract

Objective: To explore capacity of University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) student health centers (SHCs) to provide medication abortion (MA) and SHC staff perspectives on providing MA.

Study design: SHC staff completed an online survey; we conducted site visits and conference calls with a subset of SHCs. The survey focused on barriers to abortion, resources needed for MA, and potential benefits and challenges.

Results: 11 UCs (100%) and 20 CSUs (87%) completed surveys. All facilities provided basic primary care, including sexual and reproductive health services and some contraceptive services, but not abortion. All sites had adequate staffing and physical plant, but most would require training, access to ultrasound when needed, 24-hour hotlines (CSUs), and back-up care to provide MA.

Conclusion: It would be feasible to provide MA at SHCs, but investment is needed to support staff training, equipment, 24-hour hotlines, back-up care, and minimal security upgrades, in order to implement MA services.

Implications: If SB320 is passed, provision of MA services at student health centers could improve access to early abortion for students in California. This model may be scaled up at other universities around the country.

Keywords: Abortion policy; California; Medication abortion; Primary care; Student health center.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Abortion, Induced*
California
Reproductive Health Services
Student Health Services / statistics & numerical data*
Universities*