ArticleReproductive health2026
Training providers to improve access to emergency contraception in abortion ban states in the U.S.
Article in Reproductive health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDisparities in abortion and contraceptive care have intensified across the U.S. post-Dobbs, particularly in states with abortion bans and limited access to full-scope services. However, efforts to expand emergency contraception (EC) access and provider education have been limited. This study evaluated the impact of an evidence-based training on provider ability to offer the full range of EC methods.
methodsWe developed and delivered a training intervention for providers, from 2022 to 2024, at 283 clinics in Texas, Oklahoma, and Indiana, all abortion restrictive states. Participants (N = 507) completed online surveys at baseline and three months post-intervention on clinical practices for EC levonorgestrel pills (LNG ECP), ulipristal acetate (UPA), copper intrauterine devices (IUDs), and levonorgestrel 52 mg IUDs (LNG IUD). We used generalized estimating equations to assess changes in provider attitudes, counseling, and availability of each type of EC.
resultsProviders reporting that they strongly agreed that EC was safe increased across all methods, with the largest gains for UPA (58% to 78%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR 2.58], 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-4.89) copper IUDs (65% to 75%; aOR 1.76, 95% CI 1.03-3.00) and LNG IUDs (38% to 62%; aOR 2.71, 95% CI 1.91-3.83). More providers reported they included EC when counseling on contraception, with significant increases for IUDs for EC, from 61% to 77% for copper IUDs (aOR 2.39, 95% CI 1.38-4.13) and 44% to 64% for LNG IUDs (aOR 2.26, 95% CI 1.50-3.42). Counseling on pills was already high but increased further (LNG ECPs and UPA: 89% to 96%; aOR 2.78, 95% CI 1.87-4.15). Overall EC availability in clinic also improved, with LNG ECPs reaching universal availability (91% to 100%), and significant increases in UPA (67% to 79%; aOR 1.64, 95% CI 1.37-1.96) and IUDs (64% to 76%; aOR 1.77, 95% CI 1.07-2.91). Advance provision of EC pills increased modestly (28% to 34%; aOR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.06-1.83).
conclusionThis replicable training intervention was associated with increased provider counseling and clinic availability of EC. Remaining gaps to reach universal provision of EC methods highlight the need for ongoing initiatives to increase access, including in abortion ban states.
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.