Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33337493›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Prevalence of Self-Managed Abortion Among Women of Reproductive Age in the United States.

Lauren Ralph, Diana G Foster, Sarah Raifman, M Antonia Biggs, Goleen Samari, Ushma Upadhyay, Caitlin Gerdts, Daniel Grossman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Toxicities of herbal abortifacients.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Self-managed abortion: Toxic legislation, non-toxic medication.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2023
    Article
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lauren RalphAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco.
Diana G FosterAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco.
Sarah RaifmanAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco.
M Antonia BiggsAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco.
Goleen SamariDepartment of Population and Family Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Ushma UpadhyayAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco.
Caitlin GerdtsDepartment of Population and Family Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Daniel GrossmanAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco.
Columbia University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Increasing evidence indicates that people are attempting their own abortions outside the formal health care system. However, population-based estimates of experience with self-managed abortion (SMA) are lacking. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of SMA attempts among the general US population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional survey study was fielded August 2 to 17, 2017 among English- and Spanish- speaking, self-identified female panel members from the GfK web-based KnowledgePanel. Women ages 18 to 49 years were approached to complete a 1-time survey. Data were analyzed from September 22, 2017, to March 26, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: SMA was defined as "some women may do something on their own to try to end a pregnancy without medical assistance. For example, they may get information from the internet, a friend, or family member about pills, medicine, or herbs they can take on their own, or they may do something else to try to end the pregnancy." SMA was assessed using the question, "Have you ever taken or used something on your own, without medical assistance, to try to end an unwanted pregnancy?" Participants reporting SMA were asked about methods used, reasons, and outcomes. Factors associated with SMA experience, including age, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, nativity, reproductive health history, and geography, were assessed. Projected lifetime SMA prevalence was estimated using discrete-time event history models, adjusting for abortion underreporting. Results: Among 14 151 participants invited to participate, 7022 women (49.6%) (mean [SE] age, 33.9 [9.0] years) agreed to participate. Among these, 57.4% (95% CI, 55.8%-59.0%) were non-Hispanic White, 20.2% (95% CI, 18.9%-21.5%) were Hispanic, and 13.3% (95% CI, 12.1%-14.5%) were non-Hispanic Black; and 15.1% (95% CI, 14.1%-16.3%) reported living at less than 100% federal poverty level (FPL). A total of 1.4% (95% CI, 1.0%-1.8%) of participants reported a history of attempting SMA while in the US. Projected lifetime prevalence of SMA adjusting for underreporting of abortion was 7.0% (95% CI, 5.5%-8.4%). In bivariable analyses, non-Hispanic Black (prevalence ratio [PR], 3.16; 95% CI, 1.48-6.75) and Hispanic women surveyed in English (PR, 3.74; 95% CI, 1.78-7.87) were more likely than non-Hispanic White women to have attempted SMA. Women living below 100% of the FPL were also more likely to have attempted SMA compared with those at 200% FPL or greater (PR, 3.43; 95% CI, 1.83-6.42). At most recent SMA attempt, 20.0% (95% CI, 10.9%-33.8%) of respondents used misoprostol, 29.2% (95% CI, 17.5%-44.5%) used another medication or drug, 38.4% (95% CI, 25.3%-53.4%) used herbs, and 19.8% (95% CI, 10.0%-35.5%) used physical methods. The most common reasons for SMA included that it seemed faster or easier (47.2% [95% CI, 33.0%-61.8%]) and the clinic was too expensive (25.2% [95% CI, 15.7%-37.7%]). Of all attempts, 27.8% (95% CI, 16.6%-42.7%) of respondents reported they were successful; the remainder reported they had subsequent facility-based abortions (33.6% [95% CI, 21.0%-49.0%]), continued the pregnancy (13.4% [95% CI, 7.4%-23.1%]), had a miscarriage (11.4% [95% CI, 4.2%-27.5%]), or were unsure (13.3% [95% CI, 6.8%-24.7%]). A total of 11.0% (95% CI, 5.5%-21.0%) of respondents reported a complication. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that approximately 7% of US women reported having attempted SMA in their lifetime, commonly with ineffective methods. These findings suggest that surveys of SMA experience among patients at abortion clinics may capture only one-third of SMA attempts. People's reasons for attempting SMA indicate that as abortion becomes more restricted, SMA may become more common.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedSelf-ManagementAdultCross-Sectional StudiesDecision MakingEthnicityFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy, UnwantedPrevalenceReproductive HistorySocioeconomic FactorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID33337493
PMCPMC7749440
OpenAlexW3113116140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.