ReviewHealth affairs scholar2025
Dobbs-driven expansion of perinatal palliative care: a scoping review of the evidence and its limits.
Review in Health affairs scholar, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Navigating fetal conditions through a Reproductive Justice lens: lessons from composite cases in the United States.Reproductive health · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As abortion care restrictions increase, a growing population is continuing pregnancies complicated by life-limiting fetal conditions, making it more critical than ever to evaluate the state of the evidence in perinatal palliative care (PPC). Perinatal palliative care provides interdisciplinary, person-centered care, integrating medical management with psychosocial and bereavement support to enable values-driven decision-making. This scoping review evaluates US-based evidence on the safety, effectiveness, acceptability, and equity of PPC, assessing how these findings relate to growing abortion restrictions. Analysis of 13 studies found that US PPC programs are understudied, with limited evidence on maternal health and neonatal comfort outcomes. Studies lacked use rates for all eligible individuals, preventing assessment of overall PPC uptake. Most PPC patients reported high satisfaction, citing compassionate care, emotional support, and parental validation. However, studies lacked diversity. None examined the experience of receiving PPC due to abortion restrictions. Existing PPC evidence is limited, leaving critical gaps in safety, effectiveness, acceptability, and equity-key factors in assessing whether PPC meets its intended goals and serves diverse populations. Our review highlights that evidence is insufficient to determine whether PPC can adequately support the growing, vulnerable patient population now directed into it by policy rather than choice.
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.