Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41393223›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in global women's health2025

Multinational physician perspectives on abortion care in the context of changing legislation.

Emilie S Allaert, Caroline C Liu, Katherine Liu, Anna T Truong, Michael S Wilkes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in global women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Emilie S AllaertSchool of Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA, United States.
Caroline C LiuSchool of Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA, United States.
Katherine LiuSchool of Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA, United States.
Anna T TruongSchool of Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA, United States.
Michael S WilkesOffice of the Dean, School of Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Methods: In accordance with Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ), nineteen abortion-trained physicians practicing in Family Medicine, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and General Practice (CA Results: Analysis revealed several interconnected themes. Across all geographical practices, physicians highlighted the importance of centering care on patients' needs, but variations in legislation largely shaped clinical care. Training experience varied widely with many shaping their own education in the context of available resources. Changing policies functioned as a clinical variable, often shifting with cultural and political attitudes. Geographic, financial, facility-related, and healthcare infrastructure barriers compounded legislative obstacles, highlighting that legality does not guarantee accessibility. Participants additionally emphasized cross-specialty advocacy, reported experiences with stigma, and dispelled common misconceptions on abortion. Discussion: These findings highlight that policy functions as a major determinant of health and that centering on patient experiences, standardizing education, addressing healthcare infrastructure barriers, strengthening peer support systems, continued physician advocacy, and systemic reforms are necessary to reduce preventable delays, patient distress, and disparities in care. This study highlights the importance of incorporating physicians' perspectives into legislative discussions to ensure accurate representation of patient needs and challenges in accessing abortion care.

Indexed as

abortion act 1967abortion careaccess to abortion careDobbs v. Jacksoneighth amendmenthuman life protection actreproductive health policyRoe v. Wade

Identifiers

PMID41393223
PMCPMC12695807

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.