ArticleJAMA network open2024
Use of Oral and Emergency Contraceptives After the US Supreme Court's Dobbs Decision.
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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trends in Intrauterine Device Use Before and After National Eligibility Guideline Changes.O&G open · 2026Article
- Methodological considerations for investigating the impact of abortion restrictions on outcomes using aggregate panel data.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Over-the-counter emergency contraceptive sales before and afterHealth affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Training providers to improve access to emergency contraception in abortion ban states in the U.S.Reproductive health · 2026Article
- Prevalence and type of contraception use among US college students: A needed update.Reproductive health · 2026Article
- Barriers and Needs for Postpartum Contraception.Maternal and child health journal · 2026Article
- Reshaping access: Community-led action for contraceptive access in rural Appalachian Kentucky.Contraception · 2026Article
- Oral Contraceptive Knowledge Among Adolescents and Young Women.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Behavioral Economic Assessment of Contraceptive Use and Abortion Access Among College Cis Women in the U.S.Archives of sexual behavior · 2025Article
- Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Measuring abortion in claims data: What is the state of the science?Contraception · 2025Review
- Patient-Reported Influence of Sociopolitical Issues on Post-Dobbs Vasectomy Decisions.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- The role of restrictive abortion laws on modern contraceptive use in Sub Saharan Africa.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Side effects and cessation of the oral contraceptive pill on TikTok: a content analysis.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2025Article
- Errors in Introduction, Results, and Discussion.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Predictive Factors and State-Level Barriers to Postpartum Birth Control Usage in the United States: Insights from PRAMS Phase 8.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.