ArticlePerspectives on sexual and reproductive health2024
Abortion assistance fund staff and volunteers as patient navigators following an abortion ban in Texas.
Article in Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Abortion Return Rates and Wait Times Before and After Texas' Executive Order Banning Abortion During COVID-19.American journal of public health · 2024Article
- Seeking financial and practical support in an abortion-hostile state: Analysis of abortion fund data in Kentucky, 2014-2021: Analysis of abortion fund data in Kentucky.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2024Article
- Making sense of the economics of abortion in the United States.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2024Article
- Abortion assistance fund staff and volunteers as patient navigators following an abortion ban in Texas.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextAbortion assistance funds constitute an important part of the healthcare safety net by covering some of abortion patients' out-of-pocket costs. Few studies have examined the other ways abortion assistance fund staff and volunteers support callers who need help obtaining care.
methodsBetween June and September 2020, we conducted in-depth interviews with 23 staff and volunteers at 11 local abortion assistance funds that helped Texans seeking abortion care following a March 2020 state executive order that prohibited most abortions. Interviewers explored respondents' experiences with callers whose appointments had been canceled or who traveled out of state and subsequent operational changes. We used both inductive and deductive codes in the thematic analysis.
resultsAbortion assistance fund staff and volunteers bridged callers' information gaps about the services and financial resources available and helped create plans to secure care that accounted for callers' specific needs. They provided emotional support so callers felt it was possible to overcome logistical hurdles to get an abortion, even if that required out-of-state travel. Respondents described greater collaboration between Texas-based abortion assistance funds and out-of-state organizations to support callers' more complex logistical needs and increased costs. Some callers who encountered multiple barriers to care, including interpersonal violence, were unable to obtain an abortion, even with additional supports.
conclusionsLocal abortion assistance funds worked with Texas callers to co-create person-centered plans for care and expanded inter-organization collaborations. Initiatives that bolster local assistance funds' infrastructure and capacity will be needed as the abortion access landscape becomes further restricted and complex.
Indexed as
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.