ArticlePloS one2025
Prevalence of crisis pregnancy center attendance among women in four U.S. states.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Crisis pregnancy center messaging in the post-Dobbs era.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Contraception and abortion misinformation among crisis pregnancy center attendees and non-attendees.Contraception · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCrisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) typically hold missions of preventing abortion, opposing contraception, and promoting abstinence outside of marriage. They often lack transparency about their services, posing as medical facilities or even as abortion clinics. Given the lack of evidence on the extent to which people use crisis pregnancy centers, we sought to quantify the prevalence of ever attendance at a CPC among adult, reproductive-aged women from Survey of Women data from four states. STUDY
designWe analyzed cross-sectional data from population-representative surveys conducted among adult, reproductive-age women in 2018-2019 in Iowa (N = 2,425) and in 2019-2020 in Arizona (N = 2,132), New Jersey (N = 2,132), and Wisconsin (N = 2,095). Using survey weights, we calculated the prevalences of ever CPC attendance among those with a history of pregnancy or testing for pregnancy. We focused on this subset as this comprises the women who might have had cause to attend a CPC. We also used Poisson regression to test associations between demographic correlates and ever attendance by state.
resultsPrevalence of ever CPC attendance in adult, reproductive-age women with a history of pregnancy or testing for pregnancy was statistically significantly higher in Arizona (20.2%; 95% CI, 17.6%-23.1%) compared to Iowa (14.5%; 95% CI, 12.6%-16.7%), Wisconsin (14.3%; 95% CI, 12.1%-16.8%).), and New Jersey (11.6%; 95% CI, 9.6%-13.8%). Age, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status were not correlated with ever CPC attendance among women with a history of pregnancy or testing for pregnancy in Arizona, Iowa, and New Jersey. In Wisconsin, prevalence was lower among those in the lowest socioeconomic stratum.
conclusionsEver attendance at CPCs is not rare, ranging from 11.6%-20.2% in the four states evaluated. The present study serves as an important baseline given that the prevalence may change as pregnancy options become increasingly restricted.
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.