FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2775363011> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2775363011 endingPage "251.e9" @default.
• W2775363011 startingPage "251.e1" @default.
• W2775363011 abstract "Background Religious hospitals are a large and growing part of the American healthcare system. Patients who receive obstetric and other reproductive care in religious hospitals may face religiously-based restrictions on the treatment their doctor can provide. Little is known about patients’ knowledge or preferences regarding religiously restricted reproductive healthcare. Objective(s) We aimed to assess women’s preferences for knowing a hospital’s religion and religiously based restrictions before deciding where to seek care and the acceptability of a hospital denying miscarriage treatment options for religious reasons, with and without informing the patient that other options may be available. Study Design We conducted a national survey of women aged 18–45 years. The sample was recruited from AmeriSpeak, a probability-based research panel of civilian noninstitutionalized adults. Of 2857 women invited to participate, 1430 completed surveys online or over the phone, for a survey response rate of 50.1%. All analyses adjusted for the complex sampling design and were weighted to generate estimates representative of the population of US adult reproductive-age women. We used χ2 tests and multivariable logistic regression to evaluate associations. Results One third of women aged 18–45 years (34.5%) believe it is somewhat or very important to know a hospital’s religion when deciding where to get care, but 80.7% feel it is somewhat or very important to know about a hospital’s religious restrictions on care. Being Catholic or attending religious services more frequently does not make one more or less likely to want this information. Compared with Protestant women who do not identify as born-again, women of other religious backgrounds are more likely to consider it important to know a hospital’s religious affiliation. These include religious minority women (adjusted odds ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.11–4.27), those who reported no religion/atheist/agnostic (adjusted odds ratio, 2.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.19–4.34), and born-again Protestants (adjusted odds ratio, 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.32–4.28). Religious minority women (adjusted odds ratio, 2.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.01–5.51) and those who reported no religion/atheist/agnostic (adjusted odds ratio, 3.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.42–7.04) were more likely to want to know a hospital’s restrictions on care. More than two thirds of women find it unacceptable for the hospital to restrict information and treatment options during miscarriage based on religion. Women who attended weekly religious services were significantly more likely to accept such restrictions (adjusted odds ratio, 3.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.70–5.76) and to consider transfer to another site an acceptable solution (adjusted odds ratio, 3.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.69–6.12). The question, “When should a religious hospital be allowed to restrict care based on religion?” was asked, and 52.3% responded never; 16.6%, always; and 31.1%,“under some conditions. Conclusion The vast majority of adult American women of reproductive age want information about a hospital’s religious restrictions on care when deciding where to go for obstetrics/gynecology care. Growth in the US Catholic health care sector suggests an increasing need for transparency about these restrictions so that women can make informed decisions and, when needed, seek alternative providers. Religious hospitals are a large and growing part of the American healthcare system. Patients who receive obstetric and other reproductive care in religious hospitals may face religiously-based restrictions on the treatment their doctor can provide. Little is known about patients’ knowledge or preferences regarding religiously restricted reproductive healthcare. We aimed to assess women’s preferences for knowing a hospital’s religion and religiously based restrictions before deciding where to seek care and the acceptability of a hospital denying miscarriage treatment options for religious reasons, with and without informing the patient that other options may be available. We conducted a national survey of women aged 18–45 years. The sample was recruited from AmeriSpeak, a probability-based research panel of civilian noninstitutionalized adults. Of 2857 women invited to participate, 1430 completed surveys online or over the phone, for a survey response rate of 50.1%. All analyses adjusted for the complex sampling design and were weighted to generate estimates representative of the population of US adult reproductive-age women. We used χ2 tests and multivariable logistic regression to evaluate associations. One third of women aged 18–45 years (34.5%) believe it is somewhat or very important to know a hospital’s religion when deciding where to get care, but 80.7% feel it is somewhat or very important to know about a hospital’s religious restrictions on care. Being Catholic or attending religious services more frequently does not make one more or less likely to want this information. Compared with Protestant women who do not identify as born-again, women of other religious backgrounds are more likely to consider it important to know a hospital’s religious affiliation. These include religious minority women (adjusted odds ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.11–4.27), those who reported no religion/atheist/agnostic (adjusted odds ratio, 2.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.19–4.34), and born-again Protestants (adjusted odds ratio, 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.32–4.28). Religious minority women (adjusted odds ratio, 2.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.01–5.51) and those who reported no religion/atheist/agnostic (adjusted odds ratio, 3.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.42–7.04) were more likely to want to know a hospital’s restrictions on care. More than two thirds of women find it unacceptable for the hospital to restrict information and treatment options during miscarriage based on religion. Women who attended weekly religious services were significantly more likely to accept such restrictions (adjusted odds ratio, 3.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.70–5.76) and to consider transfer to another site an acceptable solution (adjusted odds ratio, 3.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.69–6.12). The question, “When should a religious hospital be allowed to restrict care based on religion?” was asked, and 52.3% responded never; 16.6%, always; and 31.1%,“under some conditions. The vast majority of adult American women of reproductive age want information about a hospital’s religious restrictions on care when deciding where to go for obstetrics/gynecology care. Growth in the US Catholic health care sector suggests an increasing need for transparency about these restrictions so that women can make informed decisions and, when needed, seek alternative providers." @default.
• W2775363011 created "2017-12-22" @default.
• W2775363011 creator A5017095986 @default.
• W2775363011 creator A5021678433 @default.
• W2775363011 creator A5069537993 @default.
• W2775363011 creator A5074480395 @default.
• W2775363011 date "2018-02-01" @default.
• W2775363011 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W2775363011 title "Religious hospital policies on reproductive care: what do patients want to know?" @default.
• W2775363011 cites W1974603601 @default.
• W2775363011 cites W1989739995 @default.
• W2775363011 cites W2090973909 @default.
• W2775363011 cites W2091398223 @default.
• W2775363011 cites W2094167270 @default.
• W2775363011 cites W2116738317 @default.
• W2775363011 cites W2148411396 @default.
• W2775363011 cites W2152251723 @default.
• W2775363011 cites W2331873224 @default.
• W2775363011 cites W2551783859 @default.
• W2775363011 cites W2599873911 @default.
• W2775363011 cites W4234906680 @default.
• W2775363011 cites W4239080680 @default.
• W2775363011 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.595" @default.
• W2775363011 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29221943" @default.
• W2775363011 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2775363011 type Work @default.
• W2775363011 sameAs 2775363011 @default.
• W2775363011 citedByCount "17" @default.
• W2775363011 countsByYear W27753630112018 @default.
• W2775363011 countsByYear W27753630112019 @default.
• W2775363011 countsByYear W27753630112020 @default.
• W2775363011 countsByYear W27753630112021 @default.
• W2775363011 countsByYear W27753630112022 @default.
• W2775363011 countsByYear W27753630112023 @default.
• W2775363011 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2775363011 hasAuthorship W2775363011A5017095986 @default.
• W2775363011 hasAuthorship W2775363011A5021678433 @default.
• W2775363011 hasAuthorship W2775363011A5069537993 @default.
• W2775363011 hasAuthorship W2775363011A5074480395 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConcept C121752807 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConcept C151956035 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConcept C160735492 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConcept C2776210078 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConcept C2778707766 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConcept C2779234561 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConcept C2779245376 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConcept C50522688 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConceptScore W2775363011C121752807 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConceptScore W2775363011C126322002 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConceptScore W2775363011C138885662 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConceptScore W2775363011C144024400 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConceptScore W2775363011C149923435 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConceptScore W2775363011C151956035 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConceptScore W2775363011C160735492 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConceptScore W2775363011C162324750 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConceptScore W2775363011C2776210078 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConceptScore W2775363011C2778707766 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConceptScore W2775363011C2779234561 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConceptScore W2775363011C2779245376 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConceptScore W2775363011C2908647359 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConceptScore W2775363011C41895202 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConceptScore W2775363011C50522688 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConceptScore W2775363011C512399662 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConceptScore W2775363011C54355233 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConceptScore W2775363011C71924100 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConceptScore W2775363011C86803240 @default.
• W2775363011 hasConceptScore W2775363011C99454951 @default.
• W2775363011 hasFunder F4320306363 @default.
• W2775363011 hasFunder F4320313438 @default.
• W2775363011 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2775363011 hasLocation W27753630111 @default.
• W2775363011 hasLocation W27753630112 @default.
• W2775363011 hasOpenAccess W2775363011 @default.
• W2775363011 hasPrimaryLocation W27753630111 @default.
• W2775363011 hasRelatedWork W1489416026 @default.
• W2775363011 hasRelatedWork W2029680798 @default.
• W2775363011 hasRelatedWork W2057132607 @default.
• W2775363011 hasRelatedWork W2175456861 @default.
• W2775363011 hasRelatedWork W2175518041 @default.
• W2775363011 hasRelatedWork W2599103882 @default.
• W2775363011 hasRelatedWork W3126221620 @default.
• W2775363011 hasRelatedWork W3193659352 @default.
• W2775363011 hasRelatedWork W4281677959 @default.
• W2775363011 hasRelatedWork W4285113821 @default.
• W2775363011 hasVolume "218" @default.
• W2775363011 isParatext "false" @default.

• next