Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38922616›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Use of Oral and Emergency Contraceptives After the US Supreme Court's Dobbs Decision.

Dima M Qato, Rebecca Myerson, Andrew Shooshtari, Jenny S Guadamuz, G Caleb Alexander

Erratum issuedAbstract 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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Barriers and Needs for Postpartum Contraception.Maternal and child health journal · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A Call for Equal and Equitable Reproductive Health Care Access, Including the Provision of Accurate Education to Pediatric Patients.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Dima M QatoProgram on Medicines and Public Health, Alfred Mann School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Rebecca MyersonLeonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Andrew ShooshtariProgram on Medicines and Public Health, Alfred Mann School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Jenny S GuadamuzDivision of Health Policy and Management, University of California at Berkeley School of Public Health, Berkeley.
G Caleb AlexanderDepartment of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The US Supreme Court Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision allowed states to strengthen restrictions on abortion access, triggering the closure of family planning clinics and leading to confusion about the legality of emergency contraceptives (ECs). Objectives: To evaluate the association between the Dobbs decision and fills for oral and emergency contraceptives in states that enacted the most restrictive abortion policies after Dobbs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data on contraceptive fills for women of reproductive age (15-49 years) in the US from IQVIA's National Prescription Audit PayerTrak and data from the Guttmacher Institute were used to categorize changes in abortion restrictions in each state. A difference-in-differences analysis compared changes in monthly fill rates for daily oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) and ECs in states that became most restrictive (implemented a full abortion ban after Dobbs) and comparison states (kept a medium level of abortion restrictions after Dobbs) before (March 2021 to November 2021) and after (July 2022 to October 2023) the Dobbs decision. Exposure: State-level abortion restrictions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Monthly fills of OCPs and ECs per 100 000 women of reproductive age. Results: Between March 2021 and October 2023, 142.8 million prescriptions for OCPs and 904 269 prescriptions for ECs were dispensed at US retail pharmacies. Before Dobbs, trends in monthly fill rates were similar for OCPs and ECs between the most restrictive and comparison states. After the Dobbs decision, states that became the most restrictive experienced an additional 4.1% decline in OCP fills with 285.9 fewer fills per 100 000 (95% CI, -495.8 to -6.8; P = .04). In contrast to OCPs, fills for ECs increased during the first year after Dobbs (July 2022 to June 2023) in both groups of states. However, 1 year after Dobbs (July 2023 to October 2023), the most restrictive states experienced an additional 65% decrease in emergency contraceptive fills with 13.2 fewer fills per 100 000 (95% CI, -27.2 to -4.1; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of prescriptions filled at US pharmacies, the Dobbs decision was associated with declines in oral contraceptives, particularly ECs, in states enacting the most restrictive abortion policies. Given the important role of OCPs and ECs in preventing pregnancy and the need for abortion, efforts to improve access may be needed, especially in states where legal abortion is no longer an option.

Indexed as

Contraceptives, PostcoitalSupreme Court DecisionsAbortion, InducedAdolescentAdultCohort StudiesContraception, PostcoitalContraceptives, OralFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPregnancyUnited StatesYoung AdultContraceptives, OralContraceptives, Postcoital

Identifiers

PMID38922616
PMCPMC11208973

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.