Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37215676›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2023

The end of Roe v. Wade: implications for Women's mental health and care.

Amalia Londoño Tobón, Eileen McNicholas, Camille A Clare, Luu D Ireland, Jennifer L Payne, Tiffany A Moore Simas, Rachel K Scott, Madeleine Becker, Nancy Byatt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2023. 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
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  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

9 authors.

Amalia Londoño TobónDepartment of Psychiatry, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, United States.
Eileen McNicholasUMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States.
Camille A ClareDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Downstate Health Sciences University, Brooklyn, NY, United States.
Luu D IrelandUMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States.
Jennifer L PayneDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, United States.
Tiffany A Moore SimasUMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States.
Rachel K ScottMedStar Health Research Institute, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, United States.
Madeleine BeckerDepartments of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Sydney Kimmel Medical College, Integrative Medicine and Nutritional Sciences, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Nancy ByattUMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson in June 2022 reversed precedent which had previously protected abortion prior to fetal viability as a universal right within the United States. This decision almost immediately led to abortion restrictions across 25 states. The resulting lack of access to abortion care for millions of pregnant people will have profound physical and mental health consequences, the full effects of which will not be realized for years to come. Approximately 1 in 5 women access abortions in the U.S. each year. These women are diverse and represent all American groups. The Supreme court decision, however, will affect populations that have and continue to be marginalized the most. Forcing pregnant individuals to carry unwanted pregnancies worsens health outcomes and mortality risk for both the perinatal individual and the offspring. The US has one of the highest maternal mortality rates and this rate is projected to increase with abortion bans. Abortion policies also interfere with appropriate medical care of pregnant people leading to less safe pregnancies for all. Beyond the physical morbidity, the psychological sequelae of carrying a forced pregnancy to term will lead to an even greater burden of maternal mental illness, exacerbating the already existing maternal mental health crisis. This perspective piece reviews the current evidence of abortion denial on women's mental health and care. Based on the current evidence, we discuss the clinical, educational, societal, research, and policy implications of the Dobbs v. Jackson Supreme Court decision.

Indexed as

abortionDobbs v Jacksonmental healthobstetrics and gynecologyperinatalpsychiatryreproductionRoe v Wade

Identifiers

PMID37215676
PMCPMC10196497

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.