Student and Physician Views of How the Dobbs Decision Affects Training and Practice Location Preferences: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study.

Background: By allowing for abortion bans and restrictions to take effect in the majority of US states, the 2022 Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision portends to have lasting impacts on patient care and the physician workforce. Notably, it is already beginning to impact practice location preferences of US health care workers, evidenced by declining application rates to residency programs in abortion-restrictive states since 2022. Yet, there remains a gap in the literature regarding why this trend exists.

Objective: This study aims to describe what factors are driving the practice location preferences of medical students and physicians after the Dobbs decision.

Methods: This study analyzes qualitative data from a web-based, cross-sectional study. In August 2022, a nonprobabilistic sample of physicians and medical students were surveyed on social media about the impact of overturning Roe v Wade on practice location preferences, which included the free-text question "Please share your thoughts about the overturning of Roe v Wade and how it will affect your decision about your (residency/job or fellowship) programs." A total of 3 independent team members completed an inductive thematic analysis of 524 free responses, resolving differences by discussion.

Results: Approximately 1 in 4 survey respondents also completed the free-response item (524/2063, 25.4%); a total of 219 were medical students, 129 were residents and fellows, and 176 were practicing physicians. Of them, approximately half (261/524, 50.5%) resided in states where abortion bans were in place or anticipated. Those who answered the free-response item were relatively more likely to hail from states with restrictive abortion bans (P<.001) compared to those who did not, with other demographic characteristics being largely similar between the groups. Inductive thematic analysis yielded 2 broad thematic categories: patient-related and workforce-related factors influencing practice decision preferences. The 3 most common themes overall were respondent concerns regarding their patient's access to care (249/524, 47.5%), their desire not to practice or train in a state with abortion restrictions regardless of current residence (249/524, 47.5%), and their personal belief that abortion bans are human rights and/or body autonomy violation (197/524, 37.6%). Some respondents stated that the Dobbs decision would not impact their choice of practice location (41/524, 7.8%), and some supported it (35/594, 6.7%).

Conclusions: This study shows that abortion restrictions are having an impact on the practice location preferences of the physician workforce due to both patient care and personal factors. It is important that state policy makers and others who are considering abortion restrictions also consider how to address these concerns of physicians and medical students, to avoid worsening geographic maldistribution of physicians and worsening access to care from physicians for their citizens.