ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
Reproductive Health Training in 2026 and Beyond: Adapting Abortion Education in a Post-Dobbs Era.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The 2022 Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization devolved abortion regulation to individual states, producing a fragmented legal environment that complicates clinical education in obstetrics and gynecology (Ob/Gyn). In this Scholarly Perspective, we develop four sequential arguments. First, post-Dobbs legal fragmentation has materially constrained the infrastructure of abortion training, including the geographic distribution of Complex Family Planning (CFP) fellowships and the reliance on interstate rotations. Second, comprehensive reproductive health training matters not only for elective abortion provision but also for the procedural and counseling skills required to manage miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, and obstetric emergencies - clinical needs that exist in every state. Third, even where abortion remains legal, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's (ACGME) opt-out training requirement has not been uniformly implemented, and 46% of U.S. Ob/Gyn residency programs lack routine abortion training across all states. Fourth, a coordinated response is feasible and should focus on protected interstate training partnerships, sustained support for CFP fellowships, expansion of validated online and simulation-based curricula, and clearer enforcement of national training standards. We close by acknowledging the limits of training reform: educational adaptation can mitigate, but cannot substitute for, the policy changes required to restore equitable access to reproductive health care.
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.