ArticleContraception2015
Abortion access and state variation in observed unintended pregnancy.
Article in Contraception, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Certainty and intention in pregnancy decision-making: An exploratory study.Contraception · 2021Article
- Challenging unintended pregnancy as an indicator of reproductive autonomy.Contraception · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe state-level proportion of pregnancies that are unintended is an important social and public health indicator, and comparisons between states inform policy discussions. Unintended pregnancy is measured as a composite of abortions and unintended births, each of which is measured with error. We investigate whether between-state differences in abortion access and demand may bias comparisons between states' unintended pregnancy proportions when pregnancy intentions are misreported. STUDY
designWe algebraically specify the model currently used to estimate unintended pregnancy, extend it to include underreporting, and simulate the impact of underreporting on observed unintended pregnancy. Comparing the impact of underreporting across states, we identify levels of underreporting at which between-state comparisons are compromised.
resultsWe find that underreporting of unintended pregnancies could bias between-state comparisons when reporting of unintended pregnancies is less than 90-95%.
conclusionCurrent methods for estimating state-level unintended pregnancy proportions may underestimate unintended pregnancy to a greater degree in places with less abortion, and between-state comparisons may be biased. Estimates of state-level unintended pregnancy proportions would be more comparable if adjustment for completeness of retrospective underreporting were included in the estimation process. IMPLICATIONS: Estimates of unintended pregnancy should be adjusted for nonsampling error and include variances based on sampling and nonsampling error in order to permit robust comparisons between states, between populations, and across time. More research on the fidelity of retrospective reporting of pregnancy intention would facilitate this endeavor.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.