Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: We tested abortion messaging to develop evidence-based communication recommendations for doctors who provide abortion care.
METHODS: We conducted an online survey in a nationally representative sample of 1215 people, using National Opinion Research Center\'s Amerispeak Panel. We surveyed participants before and after viewing two brief videos featuring doctors who provide abortion care speaking about their work. Doctors\' comments were grounded in strategic communications and applied psychology research, and emphasized caregiving roles, avoided political-sounding punditry, and acknowledged abortion\'s complexities. We assessed participants\' characterizations of doctors, and how these characterizations impact support for abortion restrictions and views on abortion legality. We analyzed pre-post data using descriptive statistics, t tests, and multivariable regression.
RESULTS: Postmessaging more participants endorsed positive descriptors of doctors who provide abortion care (p < 0.001, t = 8.99); fewer endorsed negative descriptors (p < 0.001, t = 10.32). Increased postmessaging endorsement of positive descriptors predicted declines in support for abortion restrictions (adjusted odds ratio = 1.69, p < 0.01); decreased endorsement of negative descriptors did not. After messaging, 37% of respondents said their views of doctors who provide abortion care made them less likely to support abortion restrictions, compared to 14% before (p < 0.001, t = -6.9). After messaging, there was more overall support for legal abortion and less for abortion being mostly illegal (46% to 48% and 24% to 22%, p < 0.001; t = -4.11).
CONCLUSIONS: When doctors who provide abortion care use messaging recommendations that include speaking about abortion\'s complexities and avoiding political-sounding punditry, they generate more support for legal abortion and less for restrictions.
CONCLUSIONS: The voices of doctors who provide abortion care shape public opinion. When doctors speak from caregiving perspectives, avoid punditry, and acknowledge abortion\'s complexities, they generate more support for legal abortion and less for restrictions. However, audiences may not be aware a priori that ideas of doctors shape their views.
METHODS: We conducted an online survey in a nationally representative sample of 1215 people, using National Opinion Research Center\'s Amerispeak Panel. We surveyed participants before and after viewing two brief videos featuring doctors who provide abortion care speaking about their work. Doctors\' comments were grounded in strategic communications and applied psychology research, and emphasized caregiving roles, avoided political-sounding punditry, and acknowledged abortion\'s complexities. We assessed participants\' characterizations of doctors, and how these characterizations impact support for abortion restrictions and views on abortion legality. We analyzed pre-post data using descriptive statistics, t tests, and multivariable regression.
RESULTS: Postmessaging more participants endorsed positive descriptors of doctors who provide abortion care (p < 0.001, t = 8.99); fewer endorsed negative descriptors (p < 0.001, t = 10.32). Increased postmessaging endorsement of positive descriptors predicted declines in support for abortion restrictions (adjusted odds ratio = 1.69, p < 0.01); decreased endorsement of negative descriptors did not. After messaging, 37% of respondents said their views of doctors who provide abortion care made them less likely to support abortion restrictions, compared to 14% before (p < 0.001, t = -6.9). After messaging, there was more overall support for legal abortion and less for abortion being mostly illegal (46% to 48% and 24% to 22%, p < 0.001; t = -4.11).
CONCLUSIONS: When doctors who provide abortion care use messaging recommendations that include speaking about abortion\'s complexities and avoiding political-sounding punditry, they generate more support for legal abortion and less for restrictions.
CONCLUSIONS: The voices of doctors who provide abortion care shape public opinion. When doctors speak from caregiving perspectives, avoid punditry, and acknowledge abortion\'s complexities, they generate more support for legal abortion and less for restrictions. However, audiences may not be aware a priori that ideas of doctors shape their views.
摘要：
目的：我们测试了堕胎信息，为提供堕胎护理的医生制定基于证据的沟通建议。
方法：我们在全国有代表性的1,215人样本中进行了在线调查，使用NORC的Amerispeak®面板。我们在观看两个简短的视频之前和之后对参与者进行了调查，其中包括提供堕胎护理的医生讲述他们的工作。医生的评论基于战略沟通和应用心理学研究，并强调护理角色，避免听起来政治上的评论，并承认堕胎的复杂性。我们评估了参与者提供堕胎护理的医生的特征，这些特征如何影响对堕胎限制的支持以及对堕胎合法性的总体看法。我们使用描述性统计分析了事后数据，t检验和多元回归。
结果：发消息后，更多的参与者认可提供堕胎护理的医生的阳性描述（p<0.001，t=8.99）；较少认可的阴性描述（p<0.001，t=10.32）。消息后对阳性描述符的认可增加，预测对堕胎限制的支持下降（AOR=1.69，p<0.01）；负面描述符的认可减少没有。消息传递后，37%的受访者表示，他们对提供堕胎护理的医生的看法使他们不太可能支持堕胎限制，与之前的14%相比（p<0.001，t=-6.9）。在发送消息后，法律得到了更多的整体支持，可获得的堕胎和更少的堕胎大多是非法的(46%→48%和24%→22%，p<0.001;t=-4.11)。
结论：当提供堕胎护理的医生使用消息建议时，包括谈论堕胎的复杂性和避免听起来像政治的评论，他们为合法堕胎提供了更多的支持，而为限制提供了更少的支持。
结论：提供堕胎护理的医生的声音塑造了堕胎的公众舆论。当医生从护理角度说话时，避免徒劳，并承认堕胎的复杂性，他们产生更多的支持合法堕胎和较少的限制。然而,观众可能没有先验地意识到医生的想法塑造了他们的观点。
方法：我们在全国有代表性的1,215人样本中进行了在线调查，使用NORC的Amerispeak®面板。我们在观看两个简短的视频之前和之后对参与者进行了调查，其中包括提供堕胎护理的医生讲述他们的工作。医生的评论基于战略沟通和应用心理学研究，并强调护理角色，避免听起来政治上的评论，并承认堕胎的复杂性。我们评估了参与者提供堕胎护理的医生的特征，这些特征如何影响对堕胎限制的支持以及对堕胎合法性的总体看法。我们使用描述性统计分析了事后数据，t检验和多元回归。
结果：发消息后，更多的参与者认可提供堕胎护理的医生的阳性描述（p<0.001，t=8.99）；较少认可的阴性描述（p<0.001，t=10.32）。消息后对阳性描述符的认可增加，预测对堕胎限制的支持下降（AOR=1.69，p<0.01）；负面描述符的认可减少没有。消息传递后，37%的受访者表示，他们对提供堕胎护理的医生的看法使他们不太可能支持堕胎限制，与之前的14%相比（p<0.001，t=-6.9）。在发送消息后，法律得到了更多的整体支持，可获得的堕胎和更少的堕胎大多是非法的(46%→48%和24%→22%，p<0.001;t=-4.11)。
结论：当提供堕胎护理的医生使用消息建议时，包括谈论堕胎的复杂性和避免听起来像政治的评论，他们为合法堕胎提供了更多的支持，而为限制提供了更少的支持。
结论：提供堕胎护理的医生的声音塑造了堕胎的公众舆论。当医生从护理角度说话时，避免徒劳，并承认堕胎的复杂性，他们产生更多的支持合法堕胎和较少的限制。然而,观众可能没有先验地意识到医生的想法塑造了他们的观点。
