Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38231510›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

US Obstetrician-Gynecologists' Perceived Impacts of Post-Dobbs v Jackson State Abortion Bans.

Erika L Sabbath, Samantha M McKetchnie, Kavita S Arora, Mara Buchbinder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Impact of Abortion Bans on Emergency Care for Patients With Vaginal Bleeding: An Ethnographic Analysis.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Effects of theSexual and reproductive health matters · 2025
    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.

Erika L SabbathSchool of Social Work, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts.
Samantha M McKetchnieSchool of Social Work, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts.
Kavita S AroraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.
Mara BuchbinderCenter for Bioethics, Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Following the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in June 2022, 17 US states have functionally banned abortion except in narrow circumstances, and physicians found in violation of these laws face felony charges, loss of their medical license, fines, and prison sentences. Patient impacts are being studied closely, but less research has focused on the consequences for obstetrician-gynecologists (OB-GYNs), for whom medically necessary care provision may now carry serious personal and professional consequences. Objective: To characterize perceptions of the impact of abortion restrictions on clinical practice, moral distress, mental health, and turnover intention among US OB-GYNs practicing in states with functional bans on abortion. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study included semistructured, remote interviews with OB-GYNs from 13 US states with abortion bans. Volunteer sample of 54 OB-GYNs practicing in states that had banned abortion as of March 2023. Exposure: State abortion bans enacted between June 2022 and March 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: OB-GYNs' perceptions of clinical and personal impacts of abortion bans. Results: This study included 54 OB-GYNs (mean [SD] age, 42 [7] years; 44 [81%] female participants; 3 [6%] non-Hispanic Black or African American participants; 45 [83%] White participants) who practiced in general obstetrics and gynecology (39 [72%]), maternal-fetal medicine (7 [13%]), and complex family planning (8 [15%]). Two major domains were identified in which the laws affected OB-GYNs: (1) clinical impacts (eg, delays in care until patients became more sick or legal sign-off on a medical exception to the ban was obtained; restrictions on counseling patients on pregnancy options; inability to provide appropriate care oneself or make referrals for such care); and (2) personal impacts (eg, moral distress; fears and perceived consequences of law violation; intention to leave the state; symptoms of depression and anxiety). Conclusions and relevance: In this qualitative study of OB-GYNs practicing under abortion bans, participants reported deep and pervasive impacts of state laws, with implications for workforce sustainability, physician health, and patient outcomes. In the context of public policies that restrict physicians' clinical autonomy, organization-level supports for physicians are essential to maintain workforce sustainability, clinician health and well-being, and availability of timely and accessible health care throughout the US.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedPhysiciansAdultFemaleGynecologistsHealth PersonnelHumansMaleObstetriciansPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID38231510
PMCPMC10794934

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.