ArticleBMC medical education2026
Outcomes from a procedural abortion training program for providers in underserved areas: findings from a four-year evaluation.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
titleOutcomes from a procedural abortion training program for providers in underserved areas: findings from a four-year evaluation.
backgroundIn 2019, the Clinical Abortion Training Centers (CATC) program was initiated in collaboration with the National Abortion Federation to address gaps in abortion training for a diverse array of clinicians, not limited to ob-gyn specialists. The program aimed to increase the number of clinicians providing procedural abortion care, especially in underserved areas. Five abortion clinics, including independent and Planned Parenthood affiliates, trained physicians. The training was tailored to individual goals around proficiency with specific gestational ages. We aimed to evaluate whether trainees in this program provided abortion after training.
methodsAn evaluation team assessed the program’s impact on the ability of physicians to provide abortion care, particularly to later gestational ages, over a period of four years from 2020 to 2024. Data sources included application data, semi-structured interviews, and surveys. The study followed trainees annually up to four times post-training to evaluate their job trajectories and abortion care provision.
resultsSixty-nine physician trainees completed the program, with 44 completing at least two surveys. Post-training, 57% of trainees who completed at least two surveys were providing abortion care regularly, with increased proficiency over time. Trainees expanded access by working in underserved areas, increasing clinic hours, and raising gestational age limits for procedures. However, some trainees faced barriers such as institutional policies and state restrictions, and some needed or wanted additional training to provide independently.
conclusionsThe CATC program demonstrated potential for expanding abortion access but highlighted the need for additional training to ensure independent provision, especially for higher gestational ages. Despite challenges, the program contributed to comprehensive reproductive health care by enhancing procedural skills and advocacy. The study’s limitations include potential selection bias, small sample size, and external influences like the COVID-19 pandemic and the Dobbs decision.
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.