Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34320026›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Pregnancy outcomes after exposure to crisis pregnancy centers among an abortion-seeking sample recruited online.

Alice F Cartwright, Katherine Tumlinson, Ushma D Upadhyay

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Use of Preabortion Ultrasonography Among Telehealth Medication Abortion Patients.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alice F CartwrightDepartment of Maternal and Child Health, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1557-8062
Katherine TumlinsonDepartment of Maternal and Child Health, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America.
Ushma D UpadhyayDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco, Oakland, CA, United States of America.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Carolina Population CenterR24HD050924 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI MORGAN, SAMUEL PHILIP · 2005 to 2014
$10.0M
Research Services CoreP2CHD050924 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI KAREN B GUZZO · 2015 to 2026
$9.6M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD050924NICHD NIH HHS R24 HD050924
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMore than 2,500 crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), which seek to convince people considering abortion to continue their pregnancies, exist in the United States. However, the characteristics of people who visit CPCs and their pregnancy outcomes are largely unknown. This study sought to describe the characteristics of people considering abortion who report visiting CPCs, and whether CPC visit is associated with abortion or continuing the pregnancy 4 weeks later.

methodsBetween August 2017 to May 2018, we recruited pregnant people searching for abortion services online, and 857 participants completed baseline and 4-week follow-up surveys. We described characteristics associated with visiting a CPC and compared pregnancy and abortion outcomes for those who reported CPC visit to those who did not using mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression.

resultsOverall, 13.1% of respondents visited a confirmed CPC. Living further away from a CPC was associated with lower odds of a CPC visit. At follow-up, respondents who had visited a CPC were significantly less likely to have had an abortion (29.5%) than those who had not visited a CPC (50.5%). In the adjusted models, respondents who had visited a CPC had higher odds of being pregnant and still seeking abortion (aOR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.37-3.73) or continuing the pregnancy (aOR: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.33-4.15) (versus having had an abortion), than those who had not visited a CPC.

conclusionsCPCs may be providing resources to people who are considering continuing their pregnancy and/or they may be misleading people about the care and referrals they provide related to abortion. Pregnant people need access to accurate information, decision support, and resources to make the pregnancy or abortion decision that is best for them.

Indexed as

Abortion ApplicantsAbortion, InducedAdultCounselingCrisis InterventionFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansInternetOdds RatioPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID34320026
PMCPMC8318304
OpenAlexW3186693874

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.