Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42807374›Full record

ArticleHealth affairs scholar2026

'So easy to destroy, so hard to build': understanding impacts of federal rule changes on the Title X program, 2018-2024.

Rebecca G Simmons, Jami Baayd, Caitlin Quade, Jessica N Sanders, Audrey Widner, Alexandra Gero, Sarah Compton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health affairs scholar, 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

7 authors.

Rebecca G SimmonsDivision of Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3516-4585
Jami BaaydDivision of Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4159-4207
Caitlin QuadeDivision of Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3082-8154
Jessica N SandersDivision of Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4487-1997
Audrey WidnerDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7575-9932
Alexandra GeroDivision of Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0130-0748
Sarah ComptonDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1539-5397

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Title X is the only federal program that directly funds family planning care. Recent Rule Changes have resulted in back-and-forth shifts to the program. Our goal was to understand how the federal Title X Rule Changes have impacted grantees and their perceptions of future program participation. Methods: In 2024, we conducted qualitative interviews with 25 grantees and national partners and held listening session focus groups with 37 grantees and subrecipients. Results: We identified 5 themes: (1) Title X is seen as both programmatically burdensome and essential; (2) the 2019 Rule Change demonstrated how grantee organizational and state contexts impact their responses and decision-making; (3) external environmental factors created additional systems stressors; (4) the 2021 Rule Change resulted in return to the network but reintegration/ readjustment were taxing; and (5) existing grantee differences still impact capacity for future participation. Conclusions: We found that while Title X is viewed by grantees as a vital component of the reproductive health safety net, Rule Changes significantly increase the burden (regardless of program participation) of service delivery. Importantly for policymakers, subsequent recovery after program restoration is nonlinear and highly dependent on grantee characteristics and the local environments in which they operate.

Indexed as

contraceptionfamily planningpublic policyTitle X

Identifiers

PMID42807374
PMCPMC13617662

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.