Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37700552›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2024

Abortion patients' decision making about where to obtain out-of-state care following Texas' 2021 abortion ban.

Kari White, Whitney Arey, Brooke Whitfield, Asha Dane'el, Laura Dixon, Joseph E Potter, Tony Ogburn, Anitra D Beasley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Impact of theKansas journal of medicine
    Article
  9. Texas' Abortion Ban Conflicts With Person-Centered Health Care: Experiences of Texans With Medically Complex Pregnancies.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health
    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

8 authors.

Kari WhiteSteve Hicks School of Social Work, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6463-8626
Whitney AreyPopulation Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
Brooke WhitfieldDepartment of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
Asha Dane'elConsultant, Austin, Texas, USA.
Laura DixonPopulation Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
Joseph E PotterPopulation Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
Tony OgburnDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, Texas, USA.
Anitra D BeasleyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.

Funding

Scientific & Technical CoreP2CHD042849 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI MARK D. HAYWARD · 2017 to 2026
$5.2M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD042849
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess pregnant Texans' decisions about where to obtain out-of-state abortion care following the September 2021 implementation of Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which prohibited abortions after detectable embryonic cardiac activity. DATA SOURCE: In-depth telephone interviews with Texas residents ≥15 years of age who obtained out-of-state abortion care after SB8's implementation. STUDY

designThis qualitative study explored participants' experiences identifying and contacting abortion facilities and their concerns and considerations about traveling out of state. We used inductive and deductive codes in our thematic analysis describing people's decisions about where to obtain care and how they evaluated available options. DATA COLLECTION: Texas residents self-referred to the study from flyers we provided to abortion facilities in Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. We also enrolled participants from a concurrent online survey of Texans seeking abortion care. PRINCIPAL

findingsParticipants (n = 65) frequently obtained referral lists for out-of-state locations from health-care providers, and a few received referrals to specific facilities; however, referrals rarely included the information people needed to decide where to obtain care. More than half of the participants prioritized getting the soonest appointment and often contacted multiple locations and traveled further to do so; others who could not travel further typically waited longer for an appointment. Although the participants rarely cited state abortion restrictions or cost of care as their main reason for choosing a location, they often made sacrifices to lessen the logistical and economic hardships that state restrictions and out-of-state travel costs created. Informative abortion facility websites and compassionate scheduling staff solidified some participants' facility choice.

conclusionsPregnant Texans made difficult trade-offs and experienced travel-related burdens to obtain out-of-state abortion care. As abortion bans prohibit more people from obtaining in-state care, efforts to strengthen patient navigation are needed to reduce care-seeking burdens as this will support people's reproductive autonomy.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedTravelDecision MakingFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansPregnancyTexasTravel-Related Illnessabortion careabortion restrictionsdecision-makingout-of-state travelqualitative methodsTexas

Identifiers

PMID37700552
PMCPMC10771901

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.