ArticleHealth affairs scholar2025
Institutional support for navigating abortion bans in pulmonary and critical care: a multistate qualitative study.
Article 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 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.
- Health System Policies Following State Abortion Restrictions in the US.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- State Abortion Laws and Moral Distress in a National Sample of Obstetrician-Gynecologists.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Impact of Abortion Bans on Emergency Care for Patients With Vaginal Bleeding: An Ethnographic Analysis.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abortion bans enacted by numerous US states between 2022 and 2024 offered little guidance to health care systems on pragmatic implementation. Early studies identified meaningful impacts to obstetric and gynecological patients and clinicians and strategies for institutions to support clinicians in these specialties. There is widespread concern regarding the legal implications of these bans on all specialties, and the impact of institutional responses to abortion bans on clinicians outside of obstetrics and gynecology is unknown. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 29 physicians in pulmonary and/or critical care medicine-another specialty whose patients have acute, life-threatening conditions precipitated or complicated by reduced access to reproductive care-about institutional responses to abortion restrictions. Physicians reported 5 areas in which institutional responses varied: legal interpretation of bans, policy and procedural changes, communication with physicians about changes, public statements about bans, and harm-mitigation strategies. Health care organization responses to abortion bans considered most helpful shared key features, including unambiguous guidance, institutional support for physicians, and demonstrated commitment to patient-first care. Our findings suggest promising potential strategies for health care organizations to minimize impacts of abortion restrictions on clinicians and support them in providing the highest level of patient-centered care possible in the post-Dobbs era.
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.