Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42664009›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2026

Geographic Access to Crisis Pregnancy Centers and Abortion Facilities by State Abortion Policy.

Andrea Swartzendruber, Nicole Luisi, Danielle N Lambert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.

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

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

3 authors.

Andrea SwartzendruberDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Georgia, Athens.
Nicole LuisiDepartment of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Danielle N LambertDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Georgia, Athens.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Since the US Supreme Court's Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, the number of abortion facilities has decreased; meanwhile, government funding for and the number of crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), Christian nonprofit organizations that aim to divert people from having abortions, has increased. Objective: To examine geographic access to CPCs and abortion facilities in the US, accounting for state abortion policies. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used 2023-2024 data from CPC Map, an online geocoded CPC directory, and 2023 data from Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health's Abortion Facility Database to map 4 types of zones based on proximity to CPCs and abortion facilities in the contiguous US, estimate the number of women of reproductive age (15-49 years) who lived in each zone, and calculate driving distances from census block group centroids to the nearest CPC and abortion facility in 2023. Exposures: Geographic zones within 15-mile radii of CPCs and of abortion facilities where abortion was legal at 9 weeks' gestation and each census block group centroid's distance from the nearest CPC and abortion facility if seeking services at 9 or 19 weeks' gestation, based on abortion bans and restrictions effective December 31, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Census block groups in each of 4 zones (neither a CPC nor an abortion facility, a CPC facility only, an abortion facility only, or both a CPC and an abortion facility within a 15-mile radius) and the number of reproductive-aged women who lived in each zone, along with driving distance to the nearest CPC and abortion facility, given state abortion policies. Results: The study included 74 592 177 reproductive-aged women in 237 818 US census block groups. Less than half of block groups (46.5%) and of women (49.5%) were located within 15 miles of both a CPC and an abortion facility, over one-third (36.1% of block groups and 37.3% of women) were within 15 miles of a CPC only, 16.7% of block groups and 12.6% of women were more than 15 miles from both a CPC and an abortion facility, and 0.7% of both block groups and women were within 15 miles of an abortion facility only. Nationally, the median driving distance to the nearest CPC was 5.52 miles (range, 0.00-242.80 miles). The median distance to the nearest abortion facility was 17.17 miles (range, 0.01-711.73 miles) for people seeking abortion care at 9 weeks' gestation and 29.73 miles (range, 0.01-1012.28 miles) for those seeking care at 19 weeks' gestation, with substantial variation by region (particularly in the South) and state. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study examining the comparative geographic access to CPCs and abortion facilities throughout the US found CPCs' dominance was nearly uniform and variations in geographic access to abortion facilities based on residence and gestational duration were considerable. The findings suggest health professionals should educate patients and the public about CPCs and how to identify them and should advocate for policies that promote health and access to quality health care.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedAbortion, LegalHealth Services AccessibilityAdolescentAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPregnancyUnited StatesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID42664009
PMCPMC13525463

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.