Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36996087›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Abortion and contraception for incarcerated people: A scoping review.

Martha Paynter, Paula Pinzón Hernández, Clare Heggie, Shelley McKibbon, Sarah Munro

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Gynecologic conditions in the context of incarceration: A scoping review.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Martha PaynterFaculty of Nursing, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4194-8776
Paula Pinzón HernándezDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Clare HeggieIWK Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Shelley McKibbonWK Kellogg Health Sciences Library, Dalhousie University Libraries, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Sarah MunroDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
University of British Columbia · CADalhousie University · CAIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre · CAUniversity of New Brunswick · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen experiencing incarceration have higher rates of unmet contraceptive needs and rates of abortion than the public. Incarceration presents multiple potential barriers to accessing abortion and contraception care, including prison security protocols, prison locations, lack of access to care providers, stigma, and low health literacy. The objective of this scoping review is to understand the extent and type of evidence in relation to contraception and abortion access for people experiencing criminalization and incarceration.

methodsWe used the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and include empirical research with people experiencing criminalization or incarceration and/or with prison staff; with respect to prescription contraception or abortion access, while in custody or after having experienced incarceration/criminalization. Databases searched include CINAHL, APA PsycInfo, Gender Studies, Medline (Ovid), Embase, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts. The search yielded 6096 titles of which 43 were included in the review.

resultsOur search yielded 43 studies published between 2001 and 2021 across six countries. The studies included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods designs. The main outcomes of interest included contraceptive use; attitudes towards abortion, contraception, and pregnancy; and barriers to care. Barriers identified included lack of onsite access to options, contraceptive coercion by providers, financial costs, and disruptions to medical coverage and insurance status which incarcerated. DISCUSSION: Evidence indicates that people in prison face significant barriers to maintaining continuity of contraceptive methods, abortion access, and reproductive health guidance. Some studies articulated participants felt judged when discussing contraception with prison-based health care providers. Geographic location, out-of-pocket payments, and trust in health care providers were reported as barriers to access.

conclusionIncarceration presents considerable challenges to the access of contraception and abortion care. Future research should examine the interaction between institutional security policies and procedures on care seeking, the experiences of underserved and hyper-incarcerated groups, and the impact of being denied access to contraception and abortion and experiences of criminalization.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedPrisonersContraceptionContraceptive AgentsFemaleHumansPregnancyPrisonsContraceptive Agents

Identifiers

PMID36996087
PMCPMC10062621
OpenAlexW4361266904

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.