ArticleContraception2022
Impact of COVID-19 on abortion method under ten weeks gestational age in Southern 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- COVID-19 and abortion in the Ohio River Valley: A case study of Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe assessed the proportion of medication versus suction aspiration abortions before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in a health system that did not limit access to abortion. STUDY
designWe conducted an interrupted time series analysis among patients having an abortion at 10 weeks gestation or less at Planned Parenthood health centers in San Diego, Imperial, and Riverside Counties in California. Centers required in-person follow up for medication abortion throughout the pandemic. We compared the nine months prior to the pandemic (June 2019 to February 2020) to the first nine months of the pandemic (April 2020 to December 2020), with March 2020 as a washout period.
resultsThere was an average monthly increase of 0.78% in the proportion of medication abortions from June 2019 to February 2020 (p = 0.01, pre-pandemic trend). Immediately following the start of the pandemic, there was an estimated increase in the proportion of medication abortions of 2.58% (p = 0.23, post-level change). However, the monthly pre-pandemic trend towards medication abortions reversed by 1.07% after the start of the pandemic (p = 0.02, post-trend change), for an average monthly decrease in the proportion of medication abortions of 0.29% from April to December 2020 (p = 0.37, pandemic trend).
conclusionsThe trend towards medication abortions that was present before the COVID-19 pandemic reversed after an initial increase in medication abortions at the start of the pandemic. IMPLICATIONS: Both types of abortion should remain available during public health emergencies. Further research is needed to understand how the pandemic affected abortion methods in areas with limited access and in health centers that did not require two in-person appointments for medication abortions.
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.