ArticlePloS one2025
Examining the inaccurate reproductive health messaging of crisis pregnancy centers: A comparative qualitative study.
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.
- Mifepristone Patient Agreement Form and Medication Abortion Knowledge: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA internal medicine · 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
Abstract
objectivesGiven the prevalence of inaccurate or misleading health messaging linked to crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in the literature, we sought to understand what role, if any, standardized training materials might play in perpetuating common themes in reproductive health misinformation. STUDY
designWe identified inaccurate health messages present in qualitative interviews with 10 staff members from 8 CPCs in Ohio. Separately, we conducted a content analysis of training manuals from two parent organizations, Care Net and Heartbeat International, to understand the form and substance of inaccurate health information messages in official CPC training materials. We compared the content of the two data sources to identify themes common to both, representing both individual and institutional level dissemination of false health messages.
resultsWe found that parent organizations provide false and misleading information in their training materials, often presenting such information as factually true or accurate. In interviews with a self-identified researcher, CPC staff relayed similar inaccurate health messages about the dangers of abortion and contraception, efficacy of condoms, and causes of infertility, strongly endorsing this false information. As an incidental finding, we documented enthusiasm for dissemination of inaccurate health information by CPC staff members who engage in public outreach and education.
conclusionsWe found clear similarities in the inaccurate health messages provided by staff to researchers and the official training documents published by the CPC parent organizations. Parent organizations, therefore, may represent a potent source of reproductive health misinformation.
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.