ArticleContraception2022
Time from first clinical contact to abortion in Texas and California.
Article in Contraception, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A qualitative analysis of pharmacists' attitudes towards provision of medication abortion.BMC health services research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess whether having an abortion in Texas, a U.S. state with many restrictive abortion laws, is associated with increased time between contacting an abortion provider and receiving an abortion, compared to having an abortion in California, a less restrictive U.S. state. STUDY
designThis is a multisite, cross-sectional survey of 434 patients in 12 abortion facilities (ambulatory surgical centers and clinics) in Texas (n = 291) and three abortion clinics in California (n = 143) from 2018 to 2019. At 11 facilities in Texas the response rate was 76%. The response rate was not collected at other sites. We compare the clinical-contact-to-abortion time interval between the facilities in these two states using mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for age, race, education, household income, parity, marital status, and insurance status. We also compare barriers to scheduling and traveling to abortion appointments.
resultsMedian clinical-contact-to-abortion time is similar among respondents in Texas and California [(9 vs 8 days, p = 0.86). The odds of having a clinical-contact-to-abortion time ≥7 days is similar among respondents in Texas compared to California (adjusted odds ratio 1.0 (95% confidence interval, 0.4-2.6, p = 0.98). Respondents in Texas travel farther for their abortion (mean 22.1 vs 13.5 miles, p < 0.01), are more likely to sell something of value or delay paying another expense to pay for their abortion (49.7% vs 11.4%, p < 0.01), and to miss work to attend their abortion (73.9% vs 61.3%, p = 0.03).
conclusionsIn this study, we found no difference in clinical-contact-to-abortion time between respondents in Texas and those in California. Respondents in Texas, however, face other significant barriers in obtaining abortion care, which result in life disruptions and financial hardship. IMPLICATIONS: Patients face greater financial barriers when seeking abortion in Texas compared to California. Though we found no significant difference in clinical-contact-to-abortion time in this sample between the two states, clinical-contact-to-abortion time may be a useful measure of facility congestion and the obstacles patients face obtaining abortion care.
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.