Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41551655›Full record

ArticleContemporary drug problems2018

Drug Use during Pregnancy Policies in the United States from 1970-2016.

Sue Thomas, Ryan Treffers, Nancy F Berglas, Laurie Drabble, Sarah Cm Roberts

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary drug problems, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Sue ThomasSenior Research Scientist at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE) who specializes in the intersection of law and social science research.
Ryan Treffersassociate research scientist at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation.
Nancy F BerglasPublic Health Social Scientist at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco.
Laurie DrabbleProfessor at the San José State University (SJSU) School of Social Work.
Sarah Cm RobertsAssociate Professor in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco.

Funding

Alcohol and pregnancy: do state-level punitive and supportive policies matter?R01AA023267 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ROBERTS, SARAH C.M. · 2015 to 2025
$3.5M
NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA023267
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As U.S. states legalize marijuana and as considerable governmental attention is paid to the "opioid crisis", state policies pertaining to drug use during pregnancy are increasingly important. Although recent research has examined state policies on alcohol use during pregnancy, little is known about the scope of state policies targeting drug use during pregnancy, how they have evolved, and how they compare to alcohol use during pregnancy policies. Method: Our 46-year (1970-2016) original dataset of statutes and regulations in U.S. states covers the entirety of state-level legislating in this policy domain. Data were obtained through original legal research and from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's Alcohol Policy Information System. Policies were analyzed individually as well as by classification as punitive toward or supportive of women. Results: The number of states with drug use during pregnancy policies has increased from one in 1974 to 43 in 2016. Policies started as punitive. By the mid-to-late 1980s, supportive policies emerged, and mixed policy environments dominated in the 2000s. Overall, drug/pregnancy policy environments have become less supportive over time. Comparisons of drug laws to alcohol laws shows that states started in opposite directions at the start of the era, with drug use during pregnancy policy beginning as punitive and alcohol policy beginning as supportive. But, by 2016, the results were the same: whether via punitive-only or mixed policy environments, punitive policies were more prevalent than supportive drug use during pregnancy policy environments across states. Moreover, there is a great deal of overlap between drug use during pregnancy policies and alcohol/pregnancy policies. Conclusion: This study breaks new ground and lays the foundation for a wealth of future research. Among those studies should be those that explore the effects of these policies on drug and alcohol use by pregnant women and on birth outcomes.

Indexed as

AlcoholDrugsLawPolicyPregnancyUnited States

Identifiers

PMID41551655
PMCPMC12811024

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.