ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2024
Spatial Analyses of Crisis Pregnancy Centers and Abortion Facilities in the United States, 2021 (Pre-Dobbs): Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Crisis pregnancy center messaging in the post-Dobbs era.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Geographic Access to Crisis Pregnancy Centers and Abortion Facilities by State Abortion Policy.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Geographical Distance, Socioeconomic Deprivation, and Educational Level Shape Access to Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy in a Southern Region of Italy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCrisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) are religious nonprofit organizations with a primary mission of diverting people from having abortions. One CPC tactic has been to locate near abortion facilities. Despite medical groups' warnings that CPCs do not adhere to medical and ethical standards and pose risks, government support for CPCs has significantly increased.
objectiveThis study aims to map CPCs, abortion facilities, and geographical areas in the United States into 4 zones based on their proximity to CPCs and abortion facilities. We sought to describe the number and percentage of reproductive-aged women living in each zone and the proximity of CPCs to abortion facilities.
methodsUsing 2021 data from CPC Map and the Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health Abortion Facility Database, we determined the ratio of CPCs to abortion facilities. Along with census data, we categorized and mapped US block groups into 4 distinct zones based on locations of block group centroids within 15-mile (1 mile is approximately 1.609 km) radii of CPCs and abortion facilities, namely "no presence," "CPC only," "abortion facility only," and "dual presence." We calculated the number and percentage of block groups and reproductive-aged (15-49 years) women living in each zone. We calculated driving distances and drive times from abortion facilities to the nearest CPC and mapped abortion facilities with CPCs in close proximity. All analyses were conducted nationally and by region, division, and state.
resultsNationally, the ratio of CPCs to abortion facilities was 3.4, and 54.9% (131,410/239,462) of block groups were categorized in the "dual presence" zone, 26.6% (63,679/239,462) as "CPC only," and 0.8% (63,679/239,462) as "abortion facility only." Most reproductive-aged women (45,150,110/75,582,028, 59.7%) lived in a "dual presence" zone, 26.1% (19,696,572/75,582,028) in a "CPC only" zone, and 0.8% (625,403/75,582,028) in an "abortion facility only" zone. The number of block groups and women classified as living in each zone varied by region, division, and state. Nationally, the median distance from abortion facilities to the nearest CPC was 2 miles, and the median drive time was 5.5 minutes. Minimum drive times were <1 minute in all but 11 states. The percentages of abortion facilities with a CPC within 0.25, 0.5, 1, and 3 miles were 14.1% (107/757), 22.6% (171/757), 36.1% (273/757), and 66.3% (502/757), respectively.
conclusionsThe findings suggest that CPCs' tactic of locating near abortion facilities was largely realized before the 2022 US Supreme Court decision that overturned the federal right to abortion. Research on CPCs' locations and tactics should continue given the dynamic abortion policy landscape and risks posed by CPCs. Tailored programming to raise awareness about CPCs and help people identify and access safe sources of health care may mitigate harm. Increased regulation of CPCs and government divestment may also mitigate CPC harms.
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.