Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35993104›Full record

ReviewThe Hastings Center report2022

Ethics of a Mandatory Waiting Period for Female Sterilization.

Jessica Amalraj, Kavita Shah Arora

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Hastings Center report, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Jessica Amalraj
Kavita Shah Arora

Funding

Multi-level factors affecting postpartum sterilizationR01HD098127 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ARORA, KAVITA SHAH · 2020 to 2023
$2.5M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD098127
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to a history of coerced sterilization, a federal Medicaid sterilization policy mandates that a specific consent form be signed by a patient at least thirty days prior to when the patient undergoes sterilization. However, in contemporary obstetrical practice, the Medicaid sterilization policy serves as a policy-level barrier to autonomously desired care. We review the clinical and ethical implications of the current Medicaid sterilization policy. After discussing the utility and impact of waiting periods for other surgical procedures, we explore the psychology of time required for decision-making and consider scientific understanding of regret. We argue that the current Medicaid sterilization waiting period is clinically and ethically unjustifiable and that the policy ought to be revised in light of the goals, preferences, and concerns of the people most affected by it. While the need for continued protection against coercion remains, the current mandated waiting period does little to enforce the high-quality shared decision-making that is desired for sterilization counseling.

Indexed as

MedicaidSterilization, ReproductiveCoercionFemaleHumansUnited StatesbioethicscontraceptiondisparitiesMedicaidreproductive justicesterilizationwomen's health

Identifiers

PMID35993104
PMCPMC9621110
OpenAlexW4292572545

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.