The Impact of Driving Time to Family Planning Facilities on Preventive Service Use in Ohio

Published:February 17, 2021DOI:


      Publicly funded family planning clinics provide preventive health services to low-income populations in the U.S. In recent years, several states, including Ohio, have restricted public funds for organizations that provide or refer patients to abortion care, often resulting in clinic closures. This research evaluates the effects of such closures on preventive service use and access to care among female adults in Ohio.


      With data from the 2010 to 2015 Ohio Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, trends in health service use were assessed for female respondents aged 18–45 years with household incomes <$50,000. Clinic locations were combined with restricted-access survey ZIP codes to compute respondents’ driving times to the nearest family planning clinic. The association between changes in driving time and the use of routine preventive and unmet care owing to cost were assessed with linear probability models. Analyses took place from March 2019 to February 2020.


      Each additional 10 minutes of driving time was associated with an 8.9 percentage point increase in the likelihood of avoided care owing to cost (95% CI=1.7, 16.2), a 10.4 percentage point decrease in the likelihood of mammogram receipt during the past 12 months (95% CI= –22.3, 1.5), and a 12.5 percentage point decrease in the likelihood of ever receiving a clinical breast examination (95% CI= –18.7, –6.3). Driving time had insignificant associations with other utilization outcomes. Similar results were obtained when using driving distance.


      Reduced access to family planning clinics was associated with unmet care due to cost and a reduction in preventive service use among low-income, reproductive-aged females.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Ranji U
        • Sobel L
        • Rosenzweig C
        • Gomez I.
        Financing family planning services for low-income women: the role of public programs.
        Kaiser Family Foundation, San Francisco, CAOctober 13, 2017 (Published October 25, 2019. Accessed July 26, 2020.)
      1. HHS Office of Population Affairs. Fact sheet: final Title X rule detailing family planning grant program. Washington, DC: HHS Office of Population Affairs. Published February 22, 2019. Accessed June 9, 2020.

        • Lu Y
        • Slusky DJ.
        The impact of women's health clinic closures on preventive care.
        Am Econ J Appl Econ. 2016; 8: 100-124
        • Slusky DJ.
        Defunding women's health clinics exacerbates Hispanic disparity in preventive care.
        Econ Lett. 2017; 156: 61-64
      2. State family planning funding restrictions. Guttmacher Institute. Updated January 1, 2021. Accessed May 20, 2020.

      3. Lavrakas P Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA2008
      4. Family planning annual report. HHS, Office of Population Affairs. Updated September 2020. Accessed June 8, 2020.

      5. NAMCS and NHAMCS web tables.
        Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, January 29, 2020 (Updated January 29, 2020. Accessed August 23, 2020)
        • Croke L.
        American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists updates breast cancer screening guidelines.
        Am Fam Physician. 2012; 85 (Accessed July 8, 2020): 654-655
        • U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
        Screening for cervical cancer: recommendation statement.
        Am Fam Physician. 2012; 86 (Accessed July 8, 2020.): 555-559
        • Andridge RR
        • Little RJ.
        A review of hot deck imputation for survey non-response.
        Int Stat Rev. 2010; 78: 40-64
        • Schneider KL
        • Clark MA
        • Rakowski W
        • Lapane KL.
        Evaluating the impact of non-response bias in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).
        J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012; 66: 290-295
        • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
        Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Weighting BRFSS data: BRFSS 2015.
        Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GAPublished 2015
        • Zolna MR
        • Finn S
        • Frost JJ.
        Estimating the impact of changes in the Title X network on patient capacity.
        Guttmacher Institute, New York, NYFebruary 5, 2020 (Published)