Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34308330›Full record

ArticleContraception: X2021

Abortion service availability during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from a national census of abortion facilities in the U.S.

Shelly Kaller, M G Isabel Muñoz, Subeksha Sharma, Salma Tayel, Chris Ahlbach, Clara Cook, Ushma D Upadhyay

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contraception: X, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Pricing of medication abortion in the United States, 2021-2023.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2020.Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, D.C. : 2002) · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Shelly KallerAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, Oakland, CA, United States.
M G Isabel MuñozAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, Oakland, CA, United States.
Subeksha SharmaUniversity of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, CA, United States.
Salma TayelJohns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Chris AhlbachAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, Oakland, CA, United States.
Clara CookAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, Oakland, CA, United States.
Ushma D UpadhyayAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, Oakland, CA, United States.
Ibis Reproductive Health · USJohns Hopkins University · USUniversity of California, Berkeley · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study assessed the impact of COVID-19 on abortion services in all 50 United States states and the District of Columbia. STUDY

designANSIRH's Abortion Facility Database is a systematic collection of data on all publicly-advertising abortion facilities in the United States, updated annually through online searches and mystery shopper phone calls. Research staff updated the database in May-August 2020, assessing the number of facilities that closed, limited or stopped providing abortions, and provided telehealth options in summer 2020 due to COVID-19.  We describe these changes using frequencies and highlighting themes and examples from coded qualitative data.

resultsLocated primarily in the South and Midwest, 24 of 751 facilities that were open in 2019 temporarily closed due to the pandemic, with 9 still closed by August 2020. Other facilities described suspending abortions, referring abortion patients to other facilities, or limiting services to medication abortion. While most facilities required in-person visits for reasons like state abortion restrictions, 22% (

conclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic caused several disruptions to abortion service availability, including closures. To reduce in-person visit time, some clinics shifted to offering medication abortion (versus procedural) or telehealth. While the pandemic and abortion restrictions increased barriers to abortion provision, facilities were resilient and adapted to provide safe care for their patients. IMPLICATIONS: Barriers to abortion access were exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in areas of the country with more restrictive policies toward abortion. Telehealth care protocols offered by many abortion facilities provide an option to reduce or eliminate in-person visits.

Indexed as

AbortionAbortion facilitiesCovid-19TelehealthTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID34308330
PMCPMC8292833
OpenAlexW3181224854

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.