Article Text
Abstract
Objectives Since the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision, 17 states have imposed near-total abortion bans. These bans may negatively impact health and well-being of obstetrician-gynaecologists (OB-GYNs), due to high levels of work-related stress that the laws have created for them. The goal of the present study is to evaluate the impacts of post-Dobbs v. Jackson state abortion bans on occupational health and well-being of OB-GYNs.
Methods The Study of OB-GYNs in Post-Roe America is a qualitative study of 54 OB-GYNs practising in 13 of the 14 states with near-total abortion bans as of March 2023. Using volunteer sampling methods, participants were recruited for semistructured qualitative interviews via videoconference from March to August 2023.
Results Thematic analysis of interview transcripts identified six major domains of health and well-being impacts of state abortion bans on OB-GYNs: anxiety and depression, burden of negative emotions, burn-out, coping-related health behaviours, sleep disruption and personal relationships.
Conclusions State abortion bans following the 2022 Dobbs decision may impact the health and well-being not only of pregnant patients but also of their providers. These provider health impacts include mental health and burn-out but also extend to physical health outcomes and the work–life interface.
- Burnout, Psychological
- Mental Health
- Obstetrics
- Occupational Stress
- Occupational Health
Data availability statement
No data are available.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
No data are available.
Footnotes
Contributors ELS obtained funding, conceptualised the study, recruited and interviewed participants, coded and analysed interview transcripts and drafted the manuscript. SMM provided research assistance throughout, coded and analysed interview transcripts and edited the manuscript. KSA obtained funding, conceptualised the study and edited the manuscript. MB obtained funding, conceptualised the study, recruited and interviewed participants, coded and analysed interview transcripts and edited the manuscript. ELS, as the guarantor of the study, accepts full responsibility for the finished work.
Funding Funding for this study was provided by a Making a Difference grant from the Greenwall Foundation (no grant number).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.