Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42276814›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2026

Pregnancy care-seeking stress in the USA: a prospective cohort study.

M Antonia Biggs, Lauren Ralph, Diana Greene Foster, Stephanie Arteaga, Corinne H Rocca

Registry-linked trialAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03888404 (Attitudes and Decision-making After Pregnancy Testing Study), which is not on this 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.

NCT03888404 active not recruitingnot on this map

Attitudes and Decision-making After Pregnancy Testing Study

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of California, San FranciscoRan2019 to 2026Enrolled2,015ConditionsUnintended Pregnancy, Undesired PregnancyArmsPregnancy preferences (Aim 1), Sociocultural environment (Aim 2), Pregnancy preferences (Aim 3a), Pregnancy (Aim 3b)
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.

M Antonia BiggsDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Advancing Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), University of California, San Francisco, Oakland, California, USA antonia.biggs@ucsf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3904-3177
Lauren RalphDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Advancing Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), University of California, San Francisco, Oakland, California, USA.
Diana Greene FosterDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Advancing Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), University of California, San Francisco, Oakland, California, USA.
Stephanie ArteagaDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Advancing Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), University of California, San Francisco, Oakland, California, USA.
Corinne H RoccaDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Advancing Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), University of California, San Francisco, Oakland, California, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9892-249X

Funding

Pregnancy preferences, reproductive autonomy, and maternal health: A novel prospective studyR01HD108643 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Corinne H. Rocca · 2022 to 2026
$2.6M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD108643
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo prospectively assess pregnancy-related care sought and obstacles and stress experienced by newly pregnant people.

designThe ADAPT Study, a longitudinal cohort study, followed 2015 non-pregnant participants aged 15-34 years for a year. Those with confirmed incident pregnancies were followed through their pregnancies and for 3 years.

settingWe recruited participants from 23 reproductive and primary care facilities located in five southwestern states with different sociopolitical reproductive health contexts (restrictive, Arizona and West Texas; protective, southeastern California, Nevada and New Mexico).

participants334 people reported a new pregnancy within 1 year of enrolment; 324 with outcome data are included in this analysis. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Types of pregnancy care sought ('Have you looked into where or how you could get (prenatal care, abortion care or adoption services)?') and care-seeking stress ('How stressful was it to find (prenatal, abortion or adoption) care for this pregnancy?').

resultsMost participants (83%, 270/324) sought prenatal care; 43% (138/324) sought abortion care; and 5% (17/324) sought adoption services. Overall, 17%, 29% and 23%, respectively, reported that care-seeking was extremely/quite a bit stressful. Abortion care-seeking was associated with significantly more stress than seeking prenatal care in the ordinal (adjusted odds ratio (aOR 1.70, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.62) but not logistic (aOR 1.33, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.38) model. Adoption care-seeking stress did not differ from prenatal care-seeking stress in either model. Participants who experienced any type of abortion care-seeking obstacle and those recruited in a state with a restrictive policy environment (aOR 2.72, 95% CI 1.09 to 6.80) reported more care-seeking stress than their counterparts.

conclusionsPeople who seek pregnancy care often experience some care-seeking stress, regardless of the type of care they seek. Findings point to the need to reduce the burden of the pregnancy care-seeking process across all types of pregnancy care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03888404.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CarePrenatal CareStress, PsychologicalAbortion, InducedAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesPregnancyProspective StudiesSouthwestern United StatesYoung AdultOBSTETRICSPregnancyPUBLIC HEALTHStress, Psychological

Identifiers

PMID42276814
PMCPMC13264917

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.