|
Abstract
|
BACKGROUND: An estimated 25,000 pregnancies result from sexual assault in the United States annually. Numerous professional healthcare organizations endorse offering emergency contraception (EC) as an integrated aspect of post-sexual-assault care. Lack of knowledge surrounding EC's mechanism of action, including misinterpreting ECs as abortifacients, might restrict patient access to this important healthcare option.
PURPOSE: We evaluated sexual assault nurse examiners' understanding of the mechanism of action of oral ECs levonorgestrel (LNG) and ulipristal acetate (UPA).
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of practicing sexual assault nurse examiners was conducted through the International Association of Forensic Nurses.
RESULTS: Among 173 respondents, 96.53% reported they prescribed/dispensed EC at the time of medical forensic examinations. LNG was prescribed more frequently than UPA (57.80% vs. 38.2%, respectively). When asked if they agreed or disagreed if LNG and UPA can disrupt an established pregnancy, 83.2% selected disagree/strongly disagree for LNG versus 78.6% for UPA, which were not significantly different. When asked whether the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade would change their EC prescribing, 79.77% reported it will have no change, 6.94% said it would increase, and 12.72% reported they were unsure. Several commented they were concerned whether state laws would prohibit EC and at least one program stopped prescribing EC because of their state laws. IMPLICATIONS: Addressing misinformation regarding EC's mechanism of action and increasing access to oral EC options after sexual assault have the potential to reduce the incidence of rape-related pregnancy.
Language: en |