ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Abortion restrictions and female medical school applicants: A retrospective study.
Article in PLOS global public 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Following the reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022, U.S. states enacted divergent abortion policies that may influence women's educational and career decisions. This study examined whether these policy shifts were associated with changes in female representation among medical school applicants and matriculants across the United States. Using publicly available state-level data from the Association of American Medical Colleges (2018-2025), we conducted a fixed-effects regression analysis comparing trends in states with abortion protections (Expanded/Protected) versus those with restrictive or absent protections (Hostile/Not Protected). Forty-five jurisdictions were included after excluding six with incomplete data. Across the study period, the proportion of female applicants to medical school increased nationally by 5.3 percentage points. However, after reversal of Roe v. Wade, this growth was significantly slower in Hostile/Not Protected states than in Expanded/Protected states (β = -0.58 percentage points per year; 95% CI -1.14 to -0.025; p = 0.041). No statistically significant difference was observed in female matriculants between policy groups (β = 0.68; 95% CI -0.70 to 2.06; p = 0.332). Parallel-trend testing confirmed similar trajectories across groups before the reversal of Roe v. Wade, supporting that divergence emerged after policy change. Subgroup analyses within restrictive states revealed no differential effects by type of abortion ban (trigger, pre-viability, or reason-based). These findings suggest that restrictive reproductive policies may be subtly reshaping women's professional pathways even at the earliest stages of the physician workforce pipeline. Although absolute differences remain modest, sustained disparities in application growth could have long-term implications for gender equity and healthcare access, particularly in states already facing physician shortages. Understanding how reproductive autonomy intersects with higher education and workforce planning is essential to ensuring equitable representation in medicine and maintaining a resilient healthcare system.
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.