Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38736735›Full record

ArticleSexuality research & social policy : journal of NSRC : SR & SP2022

Parental Involvement Policies for Minors Seeking Abortion in the Southeast and Quality of Care.

Kari White, Subasri Narasimhan, Sophie A Hartwig, Erin Carroll, Alexandra McBrayer, Samantha Hubbard, Rachel Rebouché, Melissa Kottke, Kelli Stidham Hall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sexuality research & social policy : journal of NSRC : SR & SP, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. European journal of psychotraumatology · 2023
    Article
  4. 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

9 authors.

Kari WhiteSteve Hicks School of Social Work and Department of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin, TX, Austin, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6463-8626
Subasri NarasimhanDepartment of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences and Center for Reproductive Health Research in the Southeast, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Sophie A HartwigDepartment of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences and Center for Reproductive Health Research in the Southeast, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Erin CarrollDepartment of Health Care Organization and Policy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL, Birmingham, USA.
Alexandra McBrayerDepartment of Health Care Organization and Policy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL, Birmingham, USA.
Samantha HubbardICF, Inc, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Rachel RebouchéBeasley School of Law, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Melissa KottkeDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics and Jane Fonda Center, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Kelli Stidham HallHeilbrunn Department of Population & Family Health, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York City, NY, 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

Introduction: Thirty-seven states require minors seeking abortion to involve a parent, either through notification or consent. Little research has examined how implementation of these laws affect service delivery and quality of care for those who involve a parent. Methods: Between May 2018 and September 2019, in-depth interviews were conducted with 34 staff members involved in scheduling, counseling, and administration at abortion facilities in three Southeastern states. Interviews explored procedures for documenting parental involvement, minors' and parents' reactions to requirements, and challenges with implementation and compliance. Both inductive and deductive codes, informed by the Results: Parental involvement laws adversely affected four quality care domains: efficiency, patient-centeredness, timeliness, and equity. Administrative inefficiencies stemmed from the extensive documentation needed to prove an adult's relationship to a minor, increasing the time and effort needed to comply with state reporting requirements. If parents were not supportive of their minor's decision, participants felt they had a duty to intervene to ensure the minor's decision and needs remained centered. Staff further noted that delays to timely care accumulated as minors navigated parental involvement and other state mandates, pushing some beyond gestational age limits. Lower income families and those with complex familial arrangements had greater difficulty meeting state requirements. Conclusions: Parental involvement mandates undermine health service delivery and quality for minors seeking abortion services in the Southeast. Policy Implications: Removing parental involvement requirements would protect minors' reproductive autonomy and support the provision of equitable, patient-centered healthcare.

Indexed as

AbortionHealthcare qualityMinorsParental involvement lawsUnited states

Identifiers

PMID38736735
PMCPMC11086958

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.