ArticleAmerican journal of public health2017
A 21st-Century Public Health Approach to Abortion.
Article in American journal of public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revisionist History is Not Helpful. A Response to Allen, et al., MCH and Abortion: Toward a Stronger Relationship.Maternal and child health journal · 2026Article
- Strengthening the Provision of Abortion and Sexual and Reproductive Health Care Post-NEJM catalyst innovations in care delivery · 2024Article
- Parental Involvement Policies for Minors Seeking Abortion in the Southeast and Quality of Care.Sexuality research & social policy : journal of NSRC : SR & SP · 2022Article
- Racial/ethnic and educational inequities in restrictive abortion policy variation and adverse birth outcomes in the United States.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Association of Travel Distance to Nearest Abortion Facility With Rates of Abortion.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- COVID-19 Abortion Bans and Their Implications for Public Health.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2020Article
- Approaches, barriers, and facilitators to abortion-related work in U.S. health departments: perspectives of maternal and child heath and family planning professionals.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Estimating Prevalence of Abortion Using List Experiments: Findings from a Survey of Women in Delaware and Maryland.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's HealthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the United States, groups advocating for and against abortion rights often deploy public health arguments to advance their positions. Recently, these arguments have evolved into state laws that use the government health department infrastructure to increase law enforcement and regulatory activities around abortion. Many major medical and public health associations oppose these new laws because they are not evidence-based and do not protect women's health. Yet state health departments have been defending these laws in court. We propose a 21st-century public health approach to abortion based in an accepted public health framework. Specifically, we apply the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 10 Essential Public Health Services framework to abortion to describe how health departments should engage with abortion. With this public health framework as our guide, we argue that health departments should be facilitating women's ability to obtain an abortion in the state and county where they reside, researching barriers to abortion care in their states and counties, and promoting the use of a scientific evidence base in abortion-related laws, policies, regulations, and implementation of essential services.
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.