Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37934583›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2023

The Role of Telehealth in Promoting Equitable Abortion Access in the United States: Spatial Analysis.

Leah R Koenig, Andréa Becker, Jennifer Ko, Ushma D Upadhyay

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
11.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Pricing of medication abortion in the United States, 2021-2023.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Leah R KoenigAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4982-8672
Andréa BeckerAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7948-4276
Jennifer KoAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID 0009-0002-9989-1386
Ushma D UpadhyayAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2731-2157
University of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

UCSF Data Science Training to Advance Behavioral and Social Science Expertise for Health Research (DaTABASE) ProgramT32MD015070 · NIMHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI William Brown III, Yulin Hswen · 2020 to 2026
$1.7M
Protocols to ascertain adverse events after telehealth sexual and reproductive health servicesF31HD111277 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI KOENIG, LEAH REN-AI · 2023 to 2024
$81k
NICHD NIH HHS F31 HD111277NIMHD NIH HHS T32 MD015070
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEven preceding the Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, patients in the United States faced exceptional barriers to reach abortion providers. Abortion restrictions disproportionately limited abortion access among people of color, young people, and those living on low incomes. Presently, clinics in states where abortion remains legal are experiencing an influx of out-of-state patients and wait times for in-person appointments are increasing. Direct-to-patient telehealth for abortion care has expanded since its introduction in the United States in 2020. However, the role of this telehealth model in addressing geographic barriers to and inequities in abortion access remains unclear.

objectiveWe sought to examine the amount of travel that patients averted by using telehealth for abortion care, and the role of telehealth in mitigating inequities in abortion access by race or ethnicity, age, pregnancy duration, socioeconomic status, rural residence, and distance to a facility.

methodsWe used geospatial analyses and data from patients in the California Home Abortion by Telehealth Study, residing in 31 states and Washington DC, who obtained telehealth abortion care at 1 of 3 virtual abortion clinics. We used patients' residential ZIP code data and data from US abortion facility locations to document the round-trip driving distance in miles, driving time, and public transit time to the nearest abortion facility that patients averted by using telehealth abortion services from April 2021 to January 2022, before the Dobbs decision. We used binomial regression to assess whether patients reported that telehealth was more likely to make it possible to access a timely abortion among patients of color, those experiencing food insecurity, younger patients, those with longer pregnancy durations, rural patients, and those residing further from their closest abortion facility.

resultsThe 6027 patients averted a median of 10 (IQR 5-26) miles and 25 (IQR 14-46) minutes of round-trip driving, and 1 hour 25 minutes (IQR 46 minutes to 2 hours 30 minutes) of round-trip public transit time. Among a subsample of 1586 patients surveyed, 43% (n=683) reported that telehealth made it possible to obtain timely abortion care. Telehealth was most likely to make it possible to have a timely abortion for younger patients (prevalence ratio [PR] 1.4, 95% CI 1.2-1.6) for patients younger than 25 years of age compared to those 35 years of age or older), rural patients (PR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2-1.6), those experiencing food insecurity (PR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.4), and those who averted over 100 miles of driving to their closest abortion facility (PR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3-1.9).

conclusionsThese findings support the role of telehealth in reducing abortion-related travel barriers in states where abortion remains legal, especially among patient populations who already face structural barriers to abortion care. Restrictions on telehealth abortion threaten health equity.

Indexed as

Abortion, LegalHealth EquityHealth Services AccessibilityTelemedicineAdultEthnicityFemaleHumansPregnancySpatial AnalysisSupreme Court DecisionsUnited Statesabortionabortion accessbarriershealth equitylegalremoteruralspatial analysistelehealthyoung people

Identifiers

PMID37934583
PMCPMC10664017
OpenAlexW4387065937

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.