ArticlePaediatric and perinatal epidemiology2024
Evaluating participant engagement in a preconception cohort study in relation to the Dobbs decision.
Article in Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Navigating data sharing in research.American journal of human genetics · 2026Review
- Digital health technologies to transform women's health innovation and inclusive research.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Engaging, recruiting, and retaining pregnant people from marginalized communities in environmental health cohort studies: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2025Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOn June 24th, 2022, the United States (US) Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson, et al. (hereafter, the Dobbs decision) removed federal-level protections for induced abortion, sparking concerns about reproductive rights and health privacy. Although other pregnancy outcomes (e.g. spontaneous abortion, ectopic pregnancy) are not explicit targets of post-Dobbs abortion bans, study participants may be worried about how their reproductive health data are used by researchers in the post-Dobbs era.
objectiveTo evaluate the extent to which the Dobbs decision influenced participant's engagement in a preconception cohort study.
methodsWe leveraged data spanning 20 weeks before and after the Dobbs decision (4 February 2022, to 11 November 2022) from US participants in Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO), an internet-based prospective preconception cohort study of couples attempting conception. We categorised participants' state-level abortion access by residential location: banned or restricted rights; limited access; and protected rights. We evaluated three participant engagement outcomes: follow-up questionnaire completion; report of a pregnancy; and clicking on the invitation link for a fertility-tracking app. We fit separate linear regression models and restricted cubic splines to compare outcome prevalence before and after the Dobbs decision by state-level abortion category.
resultsA total of 585 newly enrolled participants and 1247 already-enrolled participants received 2802 invitations to complete a follow-up questionnaire. In states with limited or protected abortion rights, we observed little change in participant engagement. In states with banned or restricted abortion rights, however, we observed a 27.12 percentage point reduction (95% confidence interval -43.68, -10.51) in the prevalence of clicking on the invitation link for the fertility-tracking app comparing the post- versus pre-Dobbs periods.
conclusionsThere was some evidence of reduced participant engagement after the Dobbs decision in states with banned or restricted abortion rights, indicating potentially deleterious effects on the conduct of reproductive health studies.
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.