Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40483506›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2025

U.S. adults' attitudes toward abortion as a (non)essential procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Kyla M Cary, Kristen N Jozkowski, Brandon L Crawford, Ronna C Turner, Danielle Layton, Chloe Lohrmann, Jacqueline Y Paiz

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Kyla M CaryDepartment of Applied Health Science, School of Public Health-Bloomington, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA.
Kristen N JozkowskiDepartment of Applied Health Science, School of Public Health-Bloomington, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA. knjozkow@iu.edu.
Brandon L CrawfordDepartment of Applied Health Science, School of Public Health-Bloomington, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA.
Ronna C TurnerEducational Statistics and Research Methods, College of Education and Health Profession, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, USA.
Danielle LaytonDepartment of Applied Health Science, School of Public Health-Bloomington, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA.
Chloe LohrmannDepartment of Applied Health Science, School of Public Health-Bloomington, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA.
Jacqueline Y PaizDepartment of Applied Health Science, School of Public Health-Bloomington, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA.

Funding

Confidential Foundation NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) state “abortion is healthcare” in their advocacy statement. During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare services were limited to those deemed “essential,” and some conservative states’ attorneys general classified abortion as “nonessential,” against ACOG recommendations. Subsequent to the pandemic, the 2022 U.S. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision eliminated the federal right to abortion, and many states have severely restricted abortion access, making it important to ask—do people consider abortion essential healthcare? Thus, we explored U.S. adults’ opinions on abortion as an essential medical procedure.

methodsWe collected data via IPSOS’s KnowledgePanel® from September 2020 to January 2021 in four waves, three of which are included in the present study. We asked, “Do you think abortion is an essential medical procedure?” (yes, no, unsure) with a follow-up open-ended question: “Please describe why you [think/do not think/are unsure] abortion is an essential medical procedure.” Our sample comprised 1523 closed-ended and corresponding open-ended responses. We used descriptive statistics to examine closed-ended responses by wave and inductive qualitative content analysis to analyze open-ended responses collapsed across waves.

resultsAmong closed-ended responses, 44–46% indicated abortion was an essential procedure, 32–35% indicated abortion was not essential, and 19–22% indicated unsure. Among open-ended responses, 49% stated abortion was an essential medical procedure because abortion is time-sensitive, a right, and prevents suffering. Of open-ended responses, 43% indicated the essentiality of abortion as a medical procedure depends on the reason. And 32% of open-ended responses said abortion is not an essential medical procedure because abortion is elective, wrong/murder, and other procedures should take precedence. We noted instances where closed-ended responses did not correspond with open-ended reasons.

conclusionsFindings highlight the nuance in conceptualizing abortion as an essential medical procedure. Reasons provided by participants on the extent abortion is an essential medical procedure underscore the contextual nature of abortion attitudes found in previous research. Notably, people indicating abortion was not an essential medical procedure but providing explanations suggesting reasons to consider abortion essential, point to the need for more nuance in assessing abortion attitudes.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedAttitude to HealthCOVID-19AdultFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPregnancyUnited StatesYoung AdultAbortion attitudesAbortion healthcareCOVID-19Essential procedure

Identifiers

PMID40483506
PMCPMC12144747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.