Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38850329›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2024

Attitudes, concerns, and perceptions of patients undergoing fertility treatments in an abortion restrictive state in the aftermath of the Roe v. Wade reversal.

Mitra F Sharifi, Emily E Spurlin, Naazanene Vatan, Hayley Quinones, E'lysse Santana, Kenan R Omurtag, Patricia T Jimenez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

7 authors.

Mitra F SharifiWashington University/Barnes-Jewish Hospital/Saint Louis Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education Consortium, 4901 Forest Park Ave Suite 710, St. Louis, MO, 63108, USA. m.f.sharifi@wustl.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1096-8982
Emily E SpurlinWashington University in St Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Naazanene VatanWashington University in St Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Hayley QuinonesWashington University in St Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
E'lysse SantanaWashington University in St Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Kenan R OmurtagWashington University in St Louis Washington University Physicians, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Patricia T JimenezWashington University in St Louis Washington University Physicians, St. Louis, MO, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate the abortion views and reproductive concerns of current in vitro fertilization patients after the US Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson decision, which overturned the Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing abortion access.

methodsThis is a cross-sectional survey of English-speaking patients undergoing in vitro fertilization from January to November 2022 at a large academic institution in a state with restricted abortion care. Participants completed a 43-question electronic survey which measured feelings about abortion, future fertility treatments, and embryo disposition both quantitatively and qualitatively.

resultsOf 543 eligible patients, 267 (49%) consented to participate when called and were sent the survey. Of those, 180 (67%) completed it, resulting in a total completion rate of 33%. The majority believe abortion should be legal in the case of birth defects (90.8%) or rape or incest (90.3%). A significant proportion (91.4%) expressed concerns about abortion being illegal in the state that they receive infertility care. They reported some concern about making embryos (89.6%), controlling what happens to them (95.4%), and discarding them (94.4%). Patients wrote about their concerns with pursuing fertility treatments, fear of not having access to needed medical care, and the desire to remain close to states with less restrictive abortion laws.

conclusionsThe evolving political landscape surrounding access to reproductive care has created significant concerns regarding legal regulation of these treatments and the disposition of embryos. By understanding patients' concerns, health care providers can more effectively advocate for the protection of fertility treatments and patients' autonomy in embryo disposition.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedFertilization in VitroAdultCross-Sectional StudiesEmbryo DispositionFemaleHumansInfertilityMalePregnancyReproductive Techniques, AssistedSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesAbortionDobbsEmbryoIVFRoe v. Wade

Identifiers

PMID38850329
PMCPMC11263275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.