Predicted changes in travel distance for abortion among counties with low rates of effective contraceptive use following Dobbs v Jackson

Rodríguez, María I.; Meath, Thomas H. A.; Watson, Kelsey L.; Daly, Ashley; Myers, Caitlyn; McConnell, K. John

doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2023.01.032

Cited by 5 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…26 3.4 Travel as a barrier to abortion access Four studies (22.2%) in our sample discussed travel-related barriers to accessing abortion clinics and other reproductive health services (Table 2). [21][22][23][24] These studies consistently found that state laws under Dobbs would compound existing travel-related barriers. A modeling study predicted that the number of women facing restricted access to both contraception and abortion facilities would signi cantly increase after Dobbs, rising from 11% (pre-Dobbs) to 46% (post-Dobbs), affecting approximately 1.6 million women across 34 U.S. states.…”

Section: Medicationsmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…A modeling study predicted that the number of women facing restricted access to both contraception and abortion facilities would signi cantly increase after Dobbs, rising from 11% (pre-Dobbs) to 46% (post-Dobbs), affecting approximately 1.6 million women across 34 U.S. states. 23 Similarly, another modeling study found that, between January 2021 to September 2022, the mean surface travel time (e.g., car or public transport) to abortion facilities increased from 27.8 minutes (pre-Dobbs) to 100.4 minutes (post-Dobbs), resulting in approximately 33.3% of reproductive-age women living in a census tract more than 60 minutes from an abortion facility compared to only 14.6% before Dobbs. 21 Marginalized or medically-underserved populations were disproportionately affected by these travel-related barriers to accessing abortion care, e.g., census tracts located more than 60 minutes from an abortion facility predominantly consisted of residents of racial/ethnic minorities with a lower mean income and without health insurance, a high school diploma, or internet.…”

Section: Medicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Implications of Dobbs v. Jackson for patients and providers: a scoping review

Zhu,

Zhao,

Alzoubi

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson overturned the right to abortion set forth by Roe v. Wade, granting states the authority to regulate access to abortion services. This has led to widespread bans, threatening patients’ access to, and healthcare providers’ abilities to provide, the full spectrum of reproductive health services. The ruling disproportionately affects marginalized groups, exacerbating existing social disparities in health and is an emerging public health crisis. Methods We conducted a scoping review to evaluate the impact of Dobbs on patients’ health outcomes and access to health services, as well as on medical trainees’ and healthcare providers’ ability to access abortion training and provide reproductive health services. The search was based on the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRSIMA-ScR) guidelines. We searched eight bibliographic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Science Direct, JSTOR, and Web of Science) and three preprint servers (medRxiv, bioRxiv, and Europe PMC) using various combinations of keywords related to ‘abortion’ and ‘Dobbs v. Jackson’ on March 22, 2023. Four reviewers independently screened the studies based on pre-specified eligibility criteria and one reviewer performed data extraction for pre-identified themes. Results A total of 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. We found that Dobbs led to a surge in demand for contraception, compounded existing travel- and cost-related barriers to access, increased polarizing views on social media (e.g., Twitter), and evoked significant fears and concerns among medical trainees regarding their scope of practice and fears of legal repercussions for offering standard-of-care and related services to patients seeking abortions. Conclusion Our study offers valuable insights into the clinical implications of Dobbs on patients’ health outcomes and access to health services, as well as providers’ reproductive health practices.

show abstract

Section: Medicationsmentioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Medicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implications of Dobbs v. Jackson for patients and providers: a scoping review

Zhu,

Zhao,

Alzoubi

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Four studies (22.2%) focused on travel-related barriers to accessing abortion clinics and other reproductive health services (Table 2) [24,26,27,35]. These studies consistently found that state laws under Dobbs would compound existing such barriers.…”

Section: Travel As a Barrier To Abortion Accessmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…An overview of our screening process is presented in (Fig 1). The final sample consisted predominantly of cross-sectional (n = 6) [25,27,29,31,32,34], modeling (n = 5) [23,24,26,30,35], and observational (n = 4) study designs [19][20][21][22], along with was one retrospective chart review [18], one NLP-based study [28], and one commentary [33] (Table 2).…”

Section: Sample and Article Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These studies consistently found that state laws under Dobbs would compound existing such barriers. According to a modeling study, the percentage of women facing restricted access to both contraception and abortion facilities was projected to increase from 11% (pre-Dobbs) to 46% (post-Dobbs), affecting approximately 1.6 million women across 34 U.S. states [26]. Similarly, another modeling study found that, between January 2021 to September 2022, the mean surface travel time (e.g., by car or public transport) to abortion facilities increased from 27.8 minutes (pre-Dobbs) to 100.4 minutes (post-Dobbs) [24].…”

Section: Travel As a Barrier To Abortion Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Public health and clinical implications of Dobbs v. Jackson for patients and healthcare providers: A scoping review

Zhu,

Zhao,

Alzoubi

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson reversed the precedent set forth by Roe v. Wade, empowering individual states to regulate abortion care. This aftermath of this ruling has given rise to widespread bans, limiting the accessibility of abortion services for patients and impeding providers’ ability to deliver a comprehensive spectrum of reproductive health services. Of particular concern is the disproportionate impact on medically underserved groups, further heightening existing social and structural disparities in reproductive health. Methods We conducted a scoping review to broadly evaluate the clinical and public health impact of Dobbs on patients’ access to abortion care and related reproductive health services, in addition to the training and clinical practice of healthcare providers. We searched eight bibliographic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Science Direct, JSTOR, and Web of Science) and three preprint servers (medRxiv, bioRxiv, and Europe PMC) using various combinations of keywords related to ‘abortion’, ‘Dobbs’, and ‘Roe’ on March 22, 2023. Four reviewers independently screened the studies based on pre-specified eligibility criteria and one reviewer performed data extraction for pre-identified themes. The search was conducted based on PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRSIMA-ScR) guidelines. Results Eighteen studies, comprising 12 peer-reviewed articles and 6 study abstracts, met the inclusion criteria. The studies demonstrated that Dobbs increased demand for contraception, magnified existing travel- and cost-related barriers to access, further polarized views on abortion and complex family planning on social media (e.g., Twitter), and evoked substantial concerns among medical trainees regarding their scope of practice and potential legal repercussions for providing abortion care. Conclusion In the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson, further public health and clinical interventions are urgently needed to bridge disparities in abortion care and reproductive health, mitigating the deleterious consequences of this emerging public health crisis.

show abstract