ArticleContraception2026
Contraception and abortion misinformation among crisis pregnancy center attendees and non-attendees.
Article in Contraception, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate whether patients who attended a crisis pregnancy center (CPC) before initiating prenatal care hold more misinformation about contraception and abortion relative to CPC non-attendees. STUDY
designWe surveyed prenatal care patients who had attended a CPC during their current pregnancy before initiating prenatal care (n = 99) and a control group, matched on age and race, who had not attended a CPC during the index pregnancy (n = 99). We used bivariable linear regression to evaluate whether CPC attendees had lower knowledge scores for contraception and abortion (assessed separately) and to assess other potential correlates of poor knowledge.
resultsMean knowledge score was 3.9 (standard deviation [SD]=1.8; range=0-7) for contraception and 2.1 (SD=1.3; range=0-5) for abortion. CPC attendance was not associated with either contraception (ß=-0.00; p = 1.00) or abortion scores (ß=-0.06; p = 0.37). A minority of CPC attendees (40.4%) correctly identified the intrauterine device (IUD) as more effective than the pill, male condom, and withdrawal. Few attendees (17.2%) recognized that the pill, the shot, and the implant do not cause infertility. About 57.6% of attendees accurately selected the IUD from a list, consisting also of tubal ligation and vasectomy, as the reversible method. Only 19.2% of CPC attendees correctly agreed that abortion in the U.S. is safer than childbirth and only 51.5% reported that abortion does not cause infertility.
conclusionsEndorsement of inaccurate beliefs about contraception and abortion was common among prenatal care patients who had attended a CPC. Findings should be used to inform interventions to address inaccurate knowledge about reproductive health. IMPLICATIONS: Endorsement of misinformation about contraception and abortion was common among prenatal care patients who attended a CPC but did not differ by crisis pregnancy center attendance.
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.