Original Article

Patient Experiences at California Crisis Pregnancy Centers: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Online Crowd-Sourced Reviews, 2010–2019

Authors: Elaine Chan, MD, Yelena Korotkaya, MD, MPH, Vadim Osadchiy, MD, Aparna Sridhar, MD, MPH

Abstract

Objectives: Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) are nonprofit antiabortion organizations that claim provision of pregnancy resources. With the Reproduction Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act repealed, CPCs are no longer mandated to share information on state-funded family planning and abortion services. As patients increasingly seek healthcare guidance online, we evaluated crowd-sourced reviews of CPCs using the social networking site Yelp.

Methods: CPCs were identified with the CPC Map, a geo-based location resource. Of California’s 145 CPCs, 84% had Yelp pages, and 619 reviews (2010–2019) were extracted. Thematic codes were individually applied to 220 excerpts and then analyzed in detail using thematic analysis to capture emergent themes related to motivations for and experiences of CPCs. To ensure thematic saturation, we applied a natural language-processing technique called the meaning extraction method to computationally derive themes of discussion from all of the extracted posts.

Results: Motivations to seek care from CPCs included pregnancy confirmation, gaps in healthcare coverage, parenting and emotional support, and abortion care. A review of experiences reveal that CPC faith-based practice garnered both positive- and negative-based experiences. Reviewers also articulated inaccurate medical information, lack of transparency, and reduced options at CPCs.

Conclusions: This is the first study to analyze California CPCs using a social media platform. Pregnant patients turn to social media to share experiences about pregnancy resources, to find healthcare providers, and to increase transparency of services. This content provides valuable insight into the concerns of pregnant patients and offers an intimate view of California CPCs at a time when no federal regulations are in place.
Posted in: Pregnancy23

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first.

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view your purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($15)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Swartzendruber A, Steiner RJ, Newton-Levinson A. Contraceptive information on pregnancy resource center websites: a statewide content analysis. Contraception 2018; DOI 10.1016/j.contraception.2018.04.002.
 
2. Kelly K. The spread of ‘post abortion syndrome’ as social diagnosis. Soc Sci Med 2014;102:18–25.
 
3. Ranard BL, Werner RM, Antanavicius T, et al. Yelp reviews of hospital care can supplement and inform traditional surveys of the patient experience of care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2016;35(4):697–670.
 
4. Geletta S. Measuring patient satisfaction with medical services using social media generated data. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 2018;31:96–105.
 
5. Asanad K, Parameshwar PS, Houman J, et al. Online physician reviews in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery: what do patients really want? Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2018;24:109–114.
 
6. Cawkwell PB, Lee L, Weitzman M, et al. Tracking hookah bars in New York: utilizing Yelp as a powerful public health tool. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2015;1:e19.
 
7. Smith RJ, Lipoff JB. Evaluation of dermatology practice online reviews: lessons from qualitative analysis. JAMA Dermatol 2016;152:153–157.
 
8. Bardach NS, Asteria-Peñaloza R, Boscardin WJ, et al. The relationship between commercial website ratings and traditional hospital performance measures in the USA. BMJ Qual Saf 2013;22:194–202.
 
9. Swartzendruber A, Lambert D. Crisis pregnancy center map. http://www. crisispregnancycentermap.com. Published August 2018. Accessed October 2019.
 
10. Swartzendruber A, Lambert DN. A web-based geolocated directory of crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in the United States: description of CPC map methods and design features and analysis of baseline data. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2020;6:e16726.
 
11. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101.
 
12. Chung C, Pennebaker J. Revealing dimensions of thinking in open-ended self-descriptions: an automated meaning extraction method for natural language. J Res Pers 2008;42:96–132.
 
13. Boyd RL, Pennebaker JW. Did Shakespeare write double falsehood? Identifying individuals by creating psychological signatures with text analysis. Psychol Sci 2015;26:570–82.
 
14. Barrett A, Murphy M, Blackburn K. “Playing hooky” health messages: apprehension, impression management, and deception. Health Commun 2018;33:326–337.
 
15. Osadchiy V, Vanmali B, Shahinyan R, et al. Taking matters into their own hands: abstinence from pornography, masturbation, and orgasm on the Internet. Arch Sex Behav 2020;49:1427–1428.
 
16. Boyd RL. MEH: Meaning Extraction Helper (version 2.1.06). https://meh. ryanb.cc.
 
17. Blackburn KG, Yilmaz G, Boyd RL. Food for thought: exploring how people think and talk about food online. Appetite 2018;123:390–401.
 
18. Jiang T, Osadchiy V, Mills JN, et al. Is it all in my head? Self-reported psychogenic erectile dysfunction and depression are common among young men seeking advice on social media. Urology 2020;142:133–140.
 
19. Pett MA, Lackey NR, Sullivan JJ. Making Sense of Factor Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2003. .
 
20. Wolf M, Chung CK, Kordy H. Inpatient treatment to online aftercare: e-mailing themes as a function of therapeutic outcomes. Psychother Res 2010;20:71–85.
 
21. Stanton AM, Boyd RL, Pulverman CS, et al. Determining women’s sexual self-schemas through advanced computerized text analysis. Child Abuse Negl 2015;46:78–88.
 
22. Margo J, Mccloskey L, Gupte G, et al. Women’s pathways to abortion care in South Carolina: a qualitative study of obstacles and supports. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2016;48:199–207.
 
23. Cyphers NA, Clements AD, Lindseth G. The relationship between religiosity and health-promoting behaviors in pregnant women. West J Nurs Res 2017; 39:1429–1446.
 
24. Bryant-Comstock K, Bryant AG, Narasimhan S, et al. Information about sexual health on crisis pregnancy center web sites: accurate for adolescents? J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2016;29:22–25.
 
25. Kimport K. Pregnant women’s reasons for and experiences of visiting antiabortion pregnancy resource centers. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2020;52:49–56.
 
26. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Women’s health statistics: California. cdc.gov. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/ pdfs/california.pdf. Published 2016. Accessed May 10, 2020.
 
27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Evidence summary: prevent unintended pregnancy. https://www.cdc.gov/sixeighteen/pregnancy/index. htm. Published October 4, 2018. Accessed May 10, 2020.
 
28. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. ACOG Committee Opinion no. 385: the limits of conscientious refusal in reproductive medicine. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:1203–1208.
 
29. Yelp. What is Yelp’s recommendation software? https://www.yelp-support. com/article/What-is-Yelp-s-recommendation-software?l=en_US. Accessed May 12, 2020.
 
30. Guttmacher Institute. State facts about abortion: California. https://www. guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-california. Published March 6, 2020. Accessed May 12, 2020.
 
31. Kimport K, Dockray JP, Dodson S. What women seek from a pregnancy resource center. Contraception 2016;94:168–172.
 
32. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Population Affairs. HHS awards Title X family planning service grants. https://www.hhs.gov/ opa/grants-and-funding/recent-grant-awards/index.html. Published December 13, 2019. Accessed May 10, 2020.
 
33. Guttmacher Institute. State facts about unintended pregnancy: California. https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/factsheet/ca_7.pdf. Published September 7, 2017. Accessed May 10, 2020.
 
34. Swartzendruber A, Newton-Levinson A, Feuchs AE, et al. Sexual and reproductive health services and related health information on pregnancy resource center websites: a statewide content analysis. Womens Health Issues 2018;28:14–20.
 
35. Holtzman B. Have crisis pregnancy centers finally met their match: California’s Reproductive FACT Act. https://scholarlycommons.law. northwestern.edu/njlsp/vol12/iss3/3. Published 2017. Accessed November 4, 2021.
 
36. California Assembly Bill No. 775 Chapter 700. Reproductive Fact Act. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id= 201520160AB775. Accessed November 16, 2019.
 
37. Parmet WE, Berman ML, Smith JA. The Supreme Court’s crisis pregnancy center case—implications for health law. N Engl J Med 2018;379: 1489–1491.
 
38. Bryant AG, Swartz JJ. Why crisis pregnancy centers are legal but unethical. AMA J Ethics 2018;20:269–277.
 
39. Guttmacher Institute. Public costs from unintended pregnancies and the role of public insurance programs in paying for pregnancy-related care: national and state estimates for 2010. https://www.guttmacher.org/report/publiccosts-unintended-pregnancies-and-role-public-insurance-programs-payingpregnancy. Published February 2015. Accessed May 10, 2020.
 
40. Homaifar N, Freedman L, French V. “She’s on her own”: a thematic analysis of clinicians' comments on abortion referral. Contraception 2017;95: 470–476.