Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36373897›Full record

ArticleMedical education online2023

The double-edged sword of abortion regulations: Decreasing training opportunities while increasing knowledge requirements.

Hillary J Gyuras, Meredith P Field, Olivia Thornton, Danielle Bessett, Michelle L McGowan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical education online, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The Next Infodemic: Abortion Misinformation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023
    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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Hillary J GyurasGyuras Is a Research Associate, College of Public Health, the Ohio State University, Ohio, USA.
Meredith P FieldDivision of Social Sciences, Alfred University, Alfred, New York, USA.
Olivia ThorntonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Massachusetts, USA.
Danielle BessettDepartment of Sociology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Michelle L McGowanBiomedical Ethics Research Program, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Alfred University · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USMayo Clinic · USUniversity of Cincinnati · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe authors explore how abortion regulations in Ohio, an abortion-restrictive state in the USA, impact obstetrician-gynecologists' (OB/GYNs) training in reproductive healthcare and describe what OB/GYNs believe to be the broader impact of Ohio's regulations on skill-building, skills maintenance, and professional retention of reproductive healthcare providers in the state. Authors discuss how their findings foreshadow abortion training limitations in Ohio and other abortion-restrictive states now that abortion regulations have returned to the states.

methodsThe authors conducted four semi-structured focus groups and five in-depth interviews between April 2019 and March 2020. Participants included OB/GYNs practicing obstetrics and gynecology in Ohio between 2010 and 2020. Thematic analysis was conducted using Atlas.ti.

resultsTwenty attending physicians and 15 fellows and residents participated in the study. Participants discussed the impact of Ohio's written transfer agreement, gestational-limit, and abortion method and facility bans on training and skill-building opportunities. Participants felt that Ohio's strict abortion regulations 1) limit opportunities to observe and perform abortion procedures during training; 2) require learning the ever-changing legality of abortion provision; 3) limit the number of abortions OB/GYNs can provide, leading to the atrophy of their skills over time; and 4) may prevent prospective medical students and residents from choosing to study in Ohio and may lead to physician attrition from the state.

conclusionPrior to the reversal of federal protections for abortion in 2022, OB/GYNs in Ohio and other abortion-hostile states experienced barriers to training in abortion care. In returning abortion regulation to the states, access to training is likely to be increasingly restricted. This research demonstrates how abortion-restrictions hamper physicians' skills needed to care for patients, particularly in emergent situations. This puts patients at risk and places physicians in precarious ethical positions. Expanding protections and reducing restrictions on abortion will ensure OB/GYNs and trainees have the skills necessary to care for patients presenting for reproductive healthcare.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedGynecologyObstetricsAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHumansPregnancyProspective StudiesAbortionabortion restrictionsfellowshipmedical educationmedical schoolqualitative researchresidencytraining

Identifiers

PMID36373897
PMCPMC9668273
OpenAlexW4308999370

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.