Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36264611›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

The Post-Roe Political Landscape Demands a Morality of Caution for Women's Health.

Sarah Goodday, Daniel Karlin, Christine Suver, Stephen Friend

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Femtech in context: A critical conceptual (re)view.Health (London, England : 1997) · 2026
    Review
  3. 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

4 authors.

Sarah Goodday4YouandMe, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2159-1754
Daniel Karlin4YouandMe, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5794-5801
Christine SuverSage Bionetworks, Seatlle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2986-385X
Stephen Friend4YouandMe, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0830-7600

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The recent Supreme Court decision (ie, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization), revoking the constitutional right to abortion in the United States, has the potential to dramatically disrupt progress in women's health research. The typical safeguards to ensure confidentiality and privacy of research participants in studies that collect certain types of personal health information may not hold against criminal investigations surrounding suspected pregnancy terminations. There are additional risks to participants in digital health research studies involving the use of wearable devices capable of tracking physiological measures, such as body temperature and heart rate, as these have shown promise for tracking conception and could be used to identify pregnancy termination signatures. There are strategies researchers can use to protect the safety of participants in health research who could get pregnant, while also maintaining integrity of research methods. The objective of this viewpoint is to discuss potential strategies to protect research participants' privacy that include the minimization of nonessential sensitive personal health information and anonymization protocols in the event of miscarriage or termination of pregnancy. We invite others to join this discussion so as to not let the current political landscape impede progress in women's health and reproductive research, while also protecting research participants.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedAbortion, LegalFemaleHumansMoralsPregnancySupreme Court DecisionsUnited StatesWomen's Healthabortionabortion rights, confidentiality and privacydigital healtheHealthethichealth policyhealth researchhealth rightsmHealthprivacyreproductive healthreproductive informationRoe v. Wadesafetywearablewomen's healthwomen's rights

Identifiers

PMID36264611
PMCPMC9634512

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.