ArticleJAMA network open2025
Obstetrician and Gynecologist Physicians' Practice Locations Before and After the Dobbs Decision.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Abortion Bans on the Physician Workforce.O&G open · 2026Article
- The Texas Abortion Ban and Maternal Mental Health.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Oral Contraceptive Knowledge Among Adolescents and Young Women.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Abortion-related training in maternal-fetal medicine fellowship: A national survey of program directors and fellows.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: State abortion policies may influence the practice locations of obstetricians and gynecologists (OBGYNs), having potentially significant implications for access to and quality of reproductive health care. Objective: To explore changes in OBGYN practice locations from before to after the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization US Supreme Court decision in June 2022. Design, Setting, and Participants: National Plan & Provider Enumeration System data files were used in a descriptive cohort study assessing the association between state abortion policy environments and OBGYN practice locations in the US from January 1, 2018, to September 30, 2024, for all OBGYNs listed in the data files during the study period. Main Outcome and Measures: The number of OBGYNs practicing in states with differing abortion laws and the movement of OBGYNs between these states before and after the Dobbs decision. Results: The sample included 60 085 OBGYNs (59.7% women), of whom 3.8% were maternal-fetal medicine specialists and 12.9% were recent residency graduates. The mean increase in the per-quarter number of OBGYNs from before to after Dobbs was 8.3% (95% CI, 6.6%-10.1%) in states with total abortion bans, 10.5% (95% CI, 8.1%-13.0%) in states with gestational age limits or threatened bans, and 7.7% (95% CI, 5.9%-9.4%) in states with abortion protections. From the quarter immediately before Dobbs to the end of the study period, 95.8% of OBGYNs remained in protected states, 94.8% (95% CI, 94.3%-95.2%) remained in states threatening bans, and 94.2% (95% CI, 93.7%-94.7%) remained in states with abortion bans. Conclusions and Relevance: In this descriptive cohort study, there were no significant differences in trends in OBGYNs' practice locations across states with different abortion-related policy environments after the Dobbs decision. Although these findings do not provide insight into changes in the quality of care provided, they suggest that there are no major changes in the supply of OBGYNs associated with the Dobbs decision.
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.