ArticlePloS one2024
Public health and clinical implications of Dobbs v. Jackson for patients and healthcare providers: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring State- and Individual-Level Characteristics Associated with Perceived Barriers to Accessing Sexual and Reproductive Health Care Among Young Adult Black Women.Journal of sex research · 2026Article
- Anticipated Negative Impact of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Among Young Adult Black Women in the US.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2026Article
- Impact of Gender-Affirming Care Legislation on Medical Student Plans for Residency.Transgender health · 2026Article
- Reproductive stage and other risk factors associated with intimate partner violence: a multisite study of women with HIV in the United States.AIDS (London, England) · 2026Article
- "Just Stay Home and Wait It Out": Exploring Challenges Accessing Care for Miscarriage in Indiana.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2026Article
- The Impact of Restrictive Abortion Laws on Medical Residency Applications and Healthcare Access: Implications for Maternal Health Equity.Journal of pregnancy · 2026Review
- Examining women's experiences with medication abortion: a critical inquiry of women's online narratives post-Dobbs.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Article
- A Cross-Sectional Study on the Association Between Abortion and Bipolar Disorder, Major Depression: Evidence from the UK Biobank.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Obstetric-Related Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act Violations and No Health Exception Bans.JAMA health forum · 2025Article
- Situating genetic counseling research: The role of the sociopolitical climate in research production and interpretation.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Postpartum Tubal Sterilization in Sickle Cell Disease in the 2012-2019 National Inpatient Sample.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2025Article
- Increase in 9-1-1 activations for obstetric-related emergencies following the Dobbs decision in the United States.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- State-Level Prevalence of Maternity Care Deserts: Association With Healthcare Access, Utilization, and Outcomes Among Medicaid Recipients.AJPM focus · 2025Article
- Blood Borders: State laws, vaccine misinformation, and the threat to the United States blood supply.Transfusion · 2025Article
- Using Natural Language Processing to Describe the Use of an Online Community for Abortion During 2022: Dynamic Topic Modeling Analysis of Reddit Posts.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Use of Oral and Emergency Contraceptives After the US Supreme Court's Dobbs Decision.JAMA network open · 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
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOn June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson reversed the precedent set forth by Roe v. Wade, empowering individual states to regulate abortion care. This aftermath of this ruling has given rise to widespread bans, limiting the accessibility of abortion services for patients and impeding providers' ability to deliver a comprehensive spectrum of reproductive health services. Of particular concern is the disproportionate impact on medically underserved groups, further heightening existing social and structural disparities in reproductive health.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review to broadly evaluate the clinical and public health impact of Dobbs on patients' access to abortion care and related reproductive health services, in addition to the training and clinical practice of healthcare providers. We searched eight bibliographic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Science Direct, JSTOR, and Web of Science) and three preprint servers (medRxiv, bioRxiv, and Europe PMC) using various combinations of keywords related to 'abortion', 'Dobbs', and 'Roe' on March 22, 2023. Four reviewers independently screened the studies based on pre-specified eligibility criteria and one reviewer performed data extraction for pre-identified themes. The search was conducted based on PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRSIMA-ScR) guidelines.
resultsEighteen studies, comprising 12 peer-reviewed articles and 6 study abstracts, met the inclusion criteria. The studies demonstrated that Dobbs increased demand for contraception, magnified existing travel- and cost-related barriers to access, further polarized views on abortion and complex family planning on social media (e.g., Twitter), and evoked substantial concerns among medical trainees regarding their scope of practice and potential legal repercussions for providing abortion care.
conclusionIn the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson, further public health and clinical interventions are urgently needed to bridge disparities in abortion care and reproductive health, mitigating the deleterious consequences of this emerging public health crisis.
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.