Abortion and contraception for incarcerated people: A scoping review

Martha Paynter; Paula Pinzón Hernández; Clare Heggie; Shelley McKibbon; Sarah Munro

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0281481

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 4, 2022
1 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Andrea Knittel, Editor PONE-D-22-27437Abortion and Contraception for Incarcerated People: A Scoping ReviewPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Paynter, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please address each of the comments provided from the reviewers. I would strongly encourage you to make the suggested revisions that clarify the frameworks that have been applied even if that requires adding additional material to the manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 15 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Andrea Knittel Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please complete a PRISMA-ScR checklist (available at https://www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/PRISMA-ScR-Fillable-Checklist-1.docx) and upload it as supplementary file. 3. We noted that the database search of your scoping review was completed in 2021. Please ensure that your search is up to date and any relevant studies published since 2021 are included in your scoping review. 4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 6. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Abstract: - Discussion – consider rephrasing statement about judgement as it does not need a full sentence relative to the other things mentioned. Manuscript - Introduction – third paragraph could use some clarity proofreading, but explains the gap in the literature well - Methods – what are the (XX)s? - Discussion – The inclusion of abolition feminism and the Levesque framework are somewhat clunky. These are important lenses from which to consider the literature, but the discussion of them needs to be better integrated into the review. In the figure, is the left column “Availability” supposed to be bolded? Is it possible to work this in more? Are all of these aspects addressed in studies, or are you identifying them as gaps in the literature? The abbreviation “HCP” is never defined. There are many grammatical errors throughout. Consider having someone with writing expertise provide editing assistance. Overall, the organization of the manuscript could be improved. Consider focusing on only the Levesque framework or abolition feminism rather than both or reorganizing the manuscript to improve the cohesiveness of these concepts. The introduction of court cases (Roe V Wade and the Dobbs decision,) while useful in a larger context of policy, are not detailed and add an additional concept. There are quite a few moving parts here, and it needs to be simplified. Table 1: consider grouping the studies by common aims, study designs, or results. Rather than detailing each individual study, focus on reporting findings that support your conclusions. Can you include anything about the Levesque framework in this table so that it is more cohesive? Reviewer #2: Abortion and Contraception for Incarcerated People: A Scoping Review Manuscript Number: PONE-D-22-27437 The authors present a study looking at the landscape of contraception and abortion access for individuals who have been incarcerated. Notably, the authors performed a global review of the literature (geographically expansive), and included a reproductively diverse study population (all people who have uteruses). Introduction -The authors concisely highlight the need for more information regarding contraception and abortion for incarcerated people -The introduction references research previously done in the US and changes to US policies regarding abortion access (ie Dobbs), but asserts the importance of this study is the international lens. It may strengthen the introduction to add some information regarding the impact of incarceration on sexual and reproductive health care for international poplations as well -There is some explanation on why the US predominates the literature in the discussion section, but may be beneficial to address the international need earlier Methods No issues Results No issues Discussion -The authors do an excellent job of discussing the results within the Levesque definition of health service access and with the lens of abolition feminism. While reading, there were a few questions that came to mind that may be of interest for the authors to discuss further? -Approachability speaks to the relationship between patients/providers. Although only one study (Sufrin, et al) addresses the experience of the providers, it may be interesting to juxatpose the provider barriers with the patient reported barriers to further explore some of the issues further. What makes it hard for HCPs to connect with patients in the carceral setting vs community setting? Did any of the studies explore this? Highlighting the significance of COs in this dynamic was important. Well done. -Affordability: This topic can be addressed on an individual and systems level. Did you find in your review that many institutions were charging patients for contracpetive methods while incarcerated? I didn’t see that in the results. This paragraph seemed to suggest the cost of the method to patients was major influence on contraceptive choice and access while incarcerated. I understand the point being made, but fear it may be misrepresented. It may be interesting to discuss how the cost of contraceptive methods affect which medications are kept on formulary and/or how this may be an area of further exploration. This is also a good place to discuss the impact insurance status on access in the community setting to contraception and abortion. Discuss geographical variances. -The authors appropriately discuss acceptability as an issue among this population. I encourage the authors to explore some of the available literature regarding social determinants of health for incarcerated individuals and consider the interplay on sexual and reproductive health. -I would add to the discussion the dearth of knowledge around contraception for individuals in the LGBTQ+ community and how the findings in this study can deeply impact their experience both while incarcerated and in the community (especially as they were added to the study population intentionally) It is discussed in the limitations, but I would consider this a finding and highlight the importance of research geared towards this community Overall, I thought the authors explored this topic well and used appropriate frameworks to contexutalized the information. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Meredith Wise Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLOS One 11_13.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281481.r001
Revision 1
16 Jan 2023 Author Response Responses to Reviewers Abortion and Contraception for Incarcerated People: A Scoping Review Manuscript Number: PONE-D-22-27437 Comment Response General 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Thank you, we have double checked style requirements and updated naming of supporting files to match style requirements. 2. Please complete a PRISMA-ScR checklist (available at https://www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/PRISMA-ScR-Fillable-Checklist-1.docx) and upload it as supplementary file. Attached as supplementary file. We noted that the database search of your scoping review was completed in 2021. Please ensure that your search is up to date and any relevant studies published since 2021 are included in your scoping review The search was completed in 2022. Apologies for confusion. 4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. Our data for the scoping review are the articles cited. 5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author Added to corresponding author information and linked in author dashboard. 6. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. We have embedded into manuscript. Reviewer 1 Abstract: - Discussion – consider rephrasing statement about judgement as it does not need a full sentence relative to the other things mentioned. Done. 1 Manuscript - Introduction – third paragraph could use some clarity proofreading, but explains the gap in the literature well Done 2 - Methods – what are the (XX)s? Blinded initials of the authors. These are replaced now with our actual initials. Discussion – The inclusion of abolition feminism and the Levesque framework are somewhat clunky. These are important lenses from which to consider the literature, but the discussion of them needs to be better integrated into the review. In the figure, is the left column “Availability” supposed to be bolded? We have removed this second table and integrated the analysis more deeply. Is it possible to work this in more? Are all of these aspects addressed in studies, or are you identifying them as gaps in the literature? Each study does not address all five elements of the Levesque definition. We sought to identify things we did see in the literature and suggestions for further approaches to examining access. The abbreviation “HCP” is never defined. Fixed There are many grammatical errors throughout. Consider having someone with writing expertise provide editing assistance. We have reviewed the article to improve. Small changes are noted in track changes. Overall, the organization of the manuscript could be improved. Consider focusing on only the Levesque framework or abolition feminism rather than both or reorganizing the manuscript to improve the cohesiveness of these concepts. We have aimed to improve the cohesiveness of the concepts The introduction of court cases (Roe V Wade and the Dobbs decision,) while useful in a larger context of policy, are not detailed and add an additional concept. There are quite a few moving parts here, and it needs to be simplified. We have removed Roe and Dobbs to simplify. Table 1: consider grouping the studies by common aims, study designs, or results. Rather than detailing each individual study, focus on reporting findings that support your conclusions. Can you include anything about the Levesque framework in this table so that it is more cohesive? Thank you for the suggestion to group otherwise, however we are maintaining the alphabetical order. We have reorganized the discussion section about the Levesque framework so that it is less suggestive of a taxonomy or classification of the review studies, and more a holistic consideration of the concepts that appear and the issues that are missing from the literature. Reviewer 2 The introduction references research previously done in the US and changes to US policies regarding abortion access (ie Dobbs), but asserts the importance of this study is the international lens. It may strengthen the introduction to add some information regarding the impact of incarceration on sexual and reproductive health care for international populations as well There is some explanation on why the US predominates the literature in the discussion section, but may be beneficial to address the international need earlier The other reviewer requested we remove the Dobbs/Roe decisions, which also decreases the US-focus. Approachability speaks to the relationship between patients/providers. Although only one study (Sufrin, et al) addresses the experience of the providers, it may be interesting to juxatpose the provider barriers with the patient reported barriers to further explore some of the issues further. What makes it hard for HCPs to connect with patients in the carceral setting vs community setting? Did any of the studies explore this? The Sufrin study among providers examined presence and content of policies, but not qualitative and experiential issues for providers. This is definitely something lacking in the literature, and we have added it to the call for future research. Affordability: This topic can be addressed on an individual and systems level. Did you find in your review that many institutions were charging patients for contraceptive methods while incarcerated? I didn’t see that in the results. This paragraph seemed to suggest the cost of the method to patients was major influence on contraceptive choice and access while incarcerated. I understand the point being made, but fear it may be misrepresented. The studies did not address who paid for contraception. We have made a few clarifying additions to this paragraph. It may be interesting to discuss how the cost of contraceptive methods affect which medications are kept on formulary and/or how this may be an area of further exploration. Agree- adding this as an idea for future study This is also a good place to discuss the impact insurance status on access in the community setting to contraception and abortion. Discuss geographical variances. Yes! We have added this, and an example from our experience in Canada. The authors appropriately discuss acceptability as an issue among this population. I encourage the authors to explore some of the available literature regarding social determinants of health for incarcerated individuals and consider the interplay on sexual and reproductive health. We have added more content about structural determinants of health, thank you. I would add to the discussion the dearth of knowledge around contraception for individuals in the LGBTQ+ community and how the findings in this study can deeply impact their experience both while incarcerated and in the community (especially as they were added to the study population intentionally) Yes, thank you. It is discussed in the limitations, but I would consider this a finding and highlight the importance of research geared towards this community Good point. We have shifted this to the Findings and called for more research. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PlosOne responses to reviewers 20221207.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281481.r002
23 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Andrea Knittel, Editor PONE-D-22-27437R1Abortion and Contraception for Incarcerated People: A Scoping ReviewPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Paynter, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. You have satisfactorily addressed all of the reviewer concerns. I have identified only a few small remaining language issues for your consideration, outlined below. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 09 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Andrea Knittel Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Thank you for addressing all of the comments from the reviewers. I think the manuscript reads well and meets criteria for publication. I have several small suggestions regarding language in the manuscript that warrant consideration prior to publication. 1. Many authors now use "criminal legal system" instead of "justice system" to reflect how little justice there is in the system. Please consider making this change. 2. Similarly, "carceral facility" or a more specific term such as "detention center" or "jail" is preferred over "correctional facility" due to the paucity of corrections that occur in these facilities. 3. "Unclothed body searches" is preferred to "strip searches." [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281481.r003
Revision 2
23 Jan 2023 Author Response Responses to Reviewers Abortion and Contraception for Incarcerated People: A Scoping Review Manuscript Number: PONE-D-22-27437 Comment Response 1. Many authors now use "criminal legal system" instead of "justice system" to reflect how little justice there is in the system. Please consider making this change. We have made this change throughout the manuscript. 2. Similarly, "carceral facility" or a more specific term such as "detention center" or "jail" is preferred over "correctional facility" due to the paucity of corrections that occur in these facilities. We have made this change throughout except when referencing “correctional officers/staff” as this is their job title. 3. "Unclothed body searches" is preferred to "strip searches." Changed, thank you. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PlosOne responses to reviewers 20230123.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281481.r004
25 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Andrea Knittel, Editor Abortion and Contraception for Incarcerated People: A Scoping Review PONE-D-22-27437R2 Dear Dr. Paynter, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Andrea Knittel Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281481.r005
Formally Accepted
15 Feb 2023 Acceptance Letter - Andrea Knittel, Editor PONE-D-22-27437R2 Abortion and Contraception for Incarcerated People: A Scoping Review Dear Dr. Paynter: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Andrea Knittel Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281481.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .