Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30306448›Full record

ArticleJournal of community health2019

Factors Shaping Women's Pre-abortion Communication with Members of Their Social Network.

Julie Chor, Megan Tusken, Danielle Young, Phoebe Lyman, Melissa Gilliam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Julie ChorDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Chicago, 5841 South Maryland Avenue MC 2050, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA. jchormd@gmail.com.
Megan TuskenThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Danielle YoungIllinois Perinatal Quality Collaborative, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, USA.
Phoebe LymanLos Angeles LGBT Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Melissa GilliamDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Chicago, 5841 South Maryland Avenue MC 2050, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA.

Funding

Re-Engineering Translational Research at the University of ChicagoKL2TR000431 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI SOLWAY, JULIAN · 2012 to 2016
$2.1M
An Intervention to Improve Women’s Reproductive HealthK23HD084753 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI CHOR, JULIE · 2015 to 2018
$577k
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000431NICHD NIH HHS K23 HD084753
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To understand women's pre-abortion conversations with members of their social network about their abortion decision. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with women presenting for first-trimester surgical abortion at a high volume, hospital-based abortion clinic. Women were asked their reasons for discussing or not discussing abortion and responses received after disclosing their abortion decision. Interviews were transcribed and computer-assisted content analysis was performed. Salient themes are presented. Thirty women who obtained an abortion were interviewed. All but three spoke to at least one member of their social network about their abortion decision making. However, women were very selective about whom they spoke to regarding this decision. Reasons not to discuss their abortion decision included: concerns about judgment, desiring to maintain privacy, and certainty about their decision. Reasons to discuss their abortion decision included: seeking information about the procedure, needing guidance about their decision, wanting support for their decision to proceed with abortion. While many were concerned about being judged, most women who spoke about their decision experienced a positive response. Though most women in this study had at least one person to turn to for assistance with abortion decision making, many participants avoided confiding in some or all members of their social network about their abortion decision due to concerns of judgment and stigma.

Indexed as

Social NetworkingSocial StigmaSocial SupportAbortion, InducedAdolescentAdultCommunicationDecision MakingFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnant PeopleYoung AdultAbortionCommunicationSocial networksStigma

Identifiers

PMID30306448
PMCPMC6414232

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.