ArticleJournal of pediatric and adolescent gynecology2025
Clinician Perspectives on Adolescent Contraceptive Counseling Following Dobbs v. Jackson: Implications for Young People's Contraceptive Autonomy.
Article in Journal of pediatric and adolescent gynecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trends in Intrauterine Device Use Before and After National Eligibility Guideline Changes.O&G open · 2026Article
- Exploring State- and Individual-Level Characteristics Associated with Perceived Barriers to Accessing Sexual and Reproductive Health Care Among Young Adult Black Women.Journal of sex research · 2026Article
- Anticipated Negative Impact of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Among Young Adult Black Women in the US.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2026Article
- Men's involvement in contraception: a qualitative study exploring the perceptions and practices of general practitioners in France.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Article
- Adolescents' and Young Adults' Receipt of Person-Centered Contraceptive Counseling.JAMA network open · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study is to understand whether clinicians who provide contraceptive counseling to adolescent patients perceive that the Dobbs decision has influenced their counseling. STUDY
designWe conducted in-depth interviews with a convenience sample of 16 clinicians who provide contraceptive counseling to adolescents at the American Academy of Pediatrics annual conference in October 2022. We used thematic content analysis and an iterative process of constant comparison to identify themes inductively. This analysis focused on participants' perception of if and how the Dobbs decision has or will influence their contraceptive counseling with adolescents.
resultsMost clinicians in our study reported that the Dobbs decision influenced their contraceptive counseling. This included promoting long-acting reversible methods more so than pre-Dobbs, and explicitly considering changing state-level abortion laws and restrictions. Many clinicians openly noted that their personal preferences influence their counseling, such as prioritizing pregnancy prevention and encouraging patients to use particular methods.
conclusionWe found that most clinicians in our sample acknowledged that the Dobbs decision has influenced their contraceptive counseling practices with adolescents. Clinicians' responses demonstrate that, in many instances, the Dobbs decision motivated them to focus on method effectiveness, leading to tiered and directive contraceptive counseling. We recommend practice changes to support comprehensive contraceptive care provision, provider trainings in unbiased counseling, and developmentally tailored decision aids are needed to ensure that adolescent patients' autonomy is prioritized over a singular focus on pregnancy prevention.
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.