ArticleWomen's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health
Comparing Website Identification for Crisis Pregnancy Centers and Abortion Clinics.
Article in Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding the mechanisms of harm: Crisis pregnancy centers and reproductive health in the post-Dobbs era.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Article
- The Problems with Crisis Pregnancy Centers: Reviewing the Literature and Identifying New Directions for Future Research.International journal of women's health · 2022Review
- Assessing Crisis Pregnancy Centers' Capacity for Supporting Perinatal Clients with Social Complexity in Rural Maternal Health Care Shortage Areas.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCrisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) seeking to dissuade women from abortion often appear in Internet searches for abortion clinics. We aimed to assess whether women can use screenshots from real websites to differentiate between CPCs and abortion clinics.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, nationally representative online study of English- and Spanish-speaking women aged 18-49 years in the United States. We presented participants with screenshots from five CPCs and five abortion clinic websites and asked if they thought an abortion could be obtained at that center. We scored correct answers based on clinic type. Outcomes included ability to correctly identify CPCs and abortion clinics as well as risk factors for misidentification. The survey also included five questions about common abortion myths and a validated health literacy assessment.
resultsWe contacted 2,223 women, of whom 1,057 (48%) completed the survey and 1,044 (47%) were included in the analysis. The median score for correctly identifying CPCs as facilities not performing abortion was 2 out of 5 (Q1: 0, Q3: 4). The median score for correctly identifying abortion clinics as facilities performing abortion was 5 out of 5 (Q1: 3, Q3: 5). Those less likely to endorse abortion myths had higher odds of correctly identifying CPCs (adjusted odds ratio, 2.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.78-3.32). A low health literacy score was associated with decreased odds of correct identification of CPCs (adjusted odds ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.59).
conclusionsWebsites of CPCs were more difficult for women to correctly identify than those of abortion clinics. Women with limited knowledge about abortion and low health literacy may be particularly susceptible to misidentification of CPC websites.
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.