ArticleLancet regional health. Americas2022
Abortion travel within the United States: An observational study of cross-state movement to obtain abortion care in 2017.
Article in Lancet regional health. Americas, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Seeking Abortion Care Across State Lines After the Dobbs Decision.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Who receives abortions at 6- or 16-weeks' gestation? A case study from Ohio.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2025Article
- Feelings about abortion at time of care: Findings from an Ohio abortion facility.Sexuality research & social policy : journal of NSRC : SR & SP · 2025Article
- Measuring abortion in claims data: What is the state of the science?Contraception · 2025Review
- Examining the inaccurate reproductive health messaging of crisis pregnancy centers: A comparative qualitative study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2022.Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, D.C. : 2002) · 2024Article
- Catastrophic Health Expenditures for In-State and Out-of-State Abortion Care.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- The experiences and perspectives of abortion seekers who travel for care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Longitudinal Impact ofAmerican journal of public health · 2024Article
- Improving healthcare quality by unifying the American electronic medical report system: time for change.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2024Article
- Abortion patients' decision making about where to obtain out-of-state care following Texas' 2021 abortion ban.Health services research · 2024Article
- Experiences of delay-causing obstacles and mental health at the time of abortion seeking.Contraception: X · 2024Article
- FromAmerican journal of public health · 2023Article
- Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2021.Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, D.C. : 2002) · 2023Article
- 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
- Abortion-Related Laws and Concurrent Patterns in Abortion Incidence in Indiana, 2010-2019.American journal of public health · 2023Article
- Kentucky's abortion landscape, 2010 to 2019: an analysis of pre-Lancet regional health. Americas · 2023Article
- The Future of Medical Abortion Care: an Internal Medicine Obligation.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2020.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2022Article
- Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2020.Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, D.C. : 2002) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In the United States, abortion access is often more limited for people who live in states with few abortion facilities and restrictive abortion legislation. Pregnant people seeking an abortion thus often travel to access care. Methods: We calculated state-specific abortion rate (number of abortions per thousand women ages 15 to 44) and percentage of patients leaving for abortion care using CDC 2017 Abortion Surveillance data, the Guttmacher Institute's Abortion Provider Census and Pregnancies, Births and Abortions in the United States report, and US Census data. We categorized percent leaving by abortion policy landscape using the Guttmacher Institute's classification of state abortion laws, and by facility density (number of abortion facilities per million women ages 15 to 44), calculated using Census and Guttmacher data. We ran correlational tests between each of our variables (percent leaving, facility density, and policy environment), as well as between percent leaving and facility density within policy environment. Findings: In 2017, an average of 8% of US patients left their state of residence for abortion care. Percent leaving varied widely by state: 74% left Wyoming, 57% left South Carolina, and 56% left Missouri, while 13 states had fewer than 4% of patients leaving. States with more restrictive laws averaged 12% of patients leaving, while states with middle ground or supportive laws averaged 10% and 3% leaving, respectively. Pairwise correlations between percent leaving, facility density, and policy score were all statistically significant, though correlations between percent leaving and facility density within policy environment were not. Interpretation: Many patients travel across state lines for abortion care. While patients may leave for a range of reasons, restrictive state-level abortion policy and facility scarcity are associated with patients leaving their state of residence. Funding: This study was supported by a philanthropic foundation that makes grants anonymously.
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.