Patient-oriented studies
|
Rising vasectomy volume following reversal of federal protections for abortion rights in the United States15
|
Bole et al.
|
Retrospective chart review (full text available)
|
Adults seeking vasectomies
|
July-August 2021 (pre-Dobbs) and July-August 2022 (post-Dobbs)
|
Vasectomy procedural billing data
|
Number of vasectomy consultation requests after Dobbs
|
35.0 p.p. increase
|
Number of vasectomy consultations after Dobbs
|
22.4 p.p. increase
|
Number of vasectomy completed (within 16 months of baseline)
|
20.7 p.p. increase
|
Number of vasectomies per month after Dobbs
|
109.6 p.p. increase
|
Search trends signal increased vasectomy interest in states with sparsity of urologists after overrule of Roe vs. Wade16
|
Patel et al.
|
Observational (full text available)
|
No restrictions
|
March 25, 2022 – June 29, 2022
|
Google Trends
|
Mean RSV for “vasectomy” after Dobbs in prohibited states
|
78.5% (vs. Oklahoma)
|
Mean RSV for “vasectomy” after Dobbs in legal states
|
64.2% (vs. Oklahoma)
|
Spearman’s ρ (RSV vs. ratio of urologists to adult men)
|
-0.36
|
The unprecedented increase in Google searches for “vasectomy” after the reversal of Roe vs. Wade17
|
Sellke et al.
|
Observational (full text available)
|
No restrictions
|
July 2017 – July 2022
|
Google Trends
|
RSV for “vasectomy” on day of Dobbs
|
100%
|
Mean difference in RSV for “vasectomy” after Dobbs
|
30.1 p.p. increase (2 weeks after vs. 2 weeks before Dobbs)
|
RSV for “vasectomy” on day of U.S. Supreme Court leaking Dobbs draft
|
60% (vs. day of Dobbs)
|
RSV for “vasectomy” on day of Alabama House Bill 314
|
55% (vs. day of Dobbs)
|
The interest in permanent contraception peaked following the leaked Supreme Court majority opinion of Roe vs. Wade: a cross-sectional Google Trends analysis18
|
Ghomeshi et al.
|
Observational (full text available)
|
No restrictions
|
April 25, 2022 – May 8, 2022
|
Google Trends
|
Mean difference in SVI for “vasectomy” after Supreme Court leaking Dobbs draft
|
121 p.p. increase (1 week after vs. 1 week before leaked draft)
|
Mean difference in SVI for “tubal ligation” after Supreme Court leaking Dobbs draft
|
70 p.p. increase (1 week after vs. 1 week before leaked draft)
|
Looking for a silver lining to the dark cloud: a Google Trends analysis of contraceptive interest in the United States post Roe vs. Wade verdict19
|
Datta et al.
|
Observational (full text available)
|
No restrictions
|
April 6, 2022 – July 5, 2022
|
Google Trends
|
Mean difference in SVI for “vasectomy” after Dobbs
|
614 p.p. increase (maximum SVI vs. SVI on June 23)
|
Mean difference in SVI for “tubal ligation” after Dobbs
|
489 p.p. increase (maximum SVI vs. SVI on June 23)
|
Mean difference in SVI for “IUD” after Dobbs
|
80 p.p. increase (maximum SVI vs. SVI on June 23)
|
Mean difference in SVI for “birth control pill” after Dobbs
|
75 p.p. increase (maximum SVI vs. SVI on June 23)
|
Mean difference in SVI for “condom” after Dobbs
|
57 p.p. increase (maximum SVI vs. SVI on June 23)
|
Mean difference in SVI for “morning after pill” after Dobbs
|
700 p.p. increase (maximum SVI vs. SVI on June 23)
|
Impact of banning emergency contraception in states with abortion bans: a cost-effectiveness analysis20
|
Dzubay et al.
|
Modeling (abstract only)
|
Theoretical cohort of people capable of pregancy in states with abortion bans under a hypothetical EC ban
|
—
|
—
|
Number of abortions after Dobbs
|
41,052 cases increase (EC ban vs. EC accessible)
|
Number of miscarriages after Dobbs
|
11,168 cases increase (EC ban vs. EC accessible)
|
Number of pre-eclampsia cases after Dobbs
|
1,611 cases increase (EC ban vs. EC accessible)
|
Number of maternal deaths after Dobbs
|
4 cases increase (EC ban vs. EC accessible)
|
Number of preterm births after Dobbs
|
3,839 cases increase (EC ban vs. EC accessible)
|
Number of neonatal deaths after Dobbs
|
83 cases increase (EC ban vs. EC accessible)
|
Number of neurodevel-opmental cases after Dobbs
|
34 cases increase (EC ban vs. EC accessible)
|
Cost
|
$541,716,923 increase (EC ban vs. EC accessible)
|
QALYs
|
13,643 QALYs increase (EC ban vs. EC accessible)
|
Estimated travel time and spatial access to abortion facilities in the US before and after the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health decision21
|
Rader et al.
|
Modeling (full text available)
|
Females of reproductive age living in the U.S.
|
January-December 2021 (pre-Dobbs) and September 2022 (modeled post-Dobbs period, assuming all abortion facilities were to be closed in states with total or 6-week abortion bans)
|
Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health database, 2020 American Community Survey
|
Median surface travel time to abortion facilities after Dobbs
|
6.1 minutes increase
|
Mean surface travel time to abortion facilities after Dobbs
|
72.6 minutes increase
|
Proportion of individuals living more than 60 minutes from an abortion facilitiy after Dobbs
|
18.7 p.p. increase
|
Requests for self-managed medication abortion provided using online telemedicine in 30 US states before and after the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision22
|
Aiken et al.
|
Cross-sectional (full text available)
|
Individuals requesting self-managed medications abortions from Aid Access
|
September 1, 2021 – May 1, 2022 (baseline), May 2, 2022 – June 23, 2022 (after Supreme Court leaking of Dobbs draft), and June 24, 2022 – August 31, 2022 (after Dobbs officially passed)
|
Aid Access
|
Mean daily requests for self-managed medication abortions after Supreme Court leaked Dobbs draft
|
54.5 daily requests increase (vs. baseline)
|
Mean daily requests for self-managed medication abortions after Dobbs officially passed
|
131.1 daily requests increase (vs. baseline)
|
Predicted changes in travel distance for abortion among counties with low rates of effective contraceptive use following Dobbs v Jackson23
|
Rodriguez et al.
|
Modeling (full text available)
|
Reproductive age Medicaid recipients (ages 15–44 years)
|
—
|
Medicaid Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System Analytic Files
|
Proportion of women living in counties with low contraceptive use and restricted access to abortion after Dobbs
|
36 p.p. increase
|
Characteristics of people obtaining abortions in states likely to ban it: findings from a 2021–2022 national study24
|
Jones & Chiu
|
Cross-sectional (abstract only)
|
Individuals obtaining abortions in a random sample of abortion facilities
|
June 2021 – June 2022
|
Survey
|
Proportion non-Hispanic Black in abortion-hostile states
|
15 p.p. higher (vs. abortion-safe states)
|
Proportion non-Hispanic White in abortion-hostile states
|
7 p.p. higher (vs. abortion-safe states)
|
Proportion obtaining medication abortions in abortion-hostile states
|
11 p.p. higher (vs. abortion-safe states)
|
Proportion traveling out-of-state to an abortion-hostile state
|
2.1 p.p. higher (vs. traveling out-of-state to an abortion-safe state)
|
Proportion paying $0 for an abortion in abortion-hostile states
|
45 p.p. lower (vs. abortion-safe states)
|
Proportion paying out of pocket for an abortion
|
87%
|
Proportion facing financial barriers for an abortion
|
56%
|
Examination of the public's reaction on Twitter to the over-turning of Roe v Wade and abortion bans25
|
Mane et al.
|
NLP (full text available)
|
1% random sample of publicly available tweets based on keywords related to Roe v. Wade and abortion
|
May 1, 2021 – July 15, 2021 (pre-Dobbs) and May 1, 2022 – July 15, 2022 (post-Dobbs)
|
Twitter API for Academic Research
|
Proportion of negative tweets related to Roe v. Wade and abortion after Dobbs
|
0.17 p.p. increase (vs. pre-Dobbs)
|
Proportion of neutral tweets related to Roe v. Wade and abortion after Dobbs
|
2.55 p.p. increase (vs. pre-Dobbs)
|
Proportion of supportive tweets related to Roe v. Wade and abortion after Dobbs
|
4.71 p.p. decrease (vs. pre-Dobbs)
|
Impact on access to ftrexate in the post-Roe era26
|
Wipfler et al.
|
Cross-sectional (abstract only)
|
Adults participating in FORWARD
|
—
|
FORWARD Survey (the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases)
|
Proportion facing a barrier to methotrexate access (confirmed due to Dobbs)
|
1.25%
|
Proportion facing a barrier to methotrexate access (likely due to Dobbs)
|
1.5%
|
Abortion restriction impact on burden of neonatal single ventricle congenital heart disease: a decision-analytic model27
|
Miller et al.
|
Modeling (abstract only)
|
Theoretical cohort of neonates under various policy scenarios
|
—
|
—
|
Complete ban scenario
|
Incidence of SVCD per 100,000 live births
|
10.8 p.p. increase (vs. pre-Dobbs baseline)
|
Incidence of SVCD-related heart surgery per 100,000 live births
|
9.4 p.p. increase (vs. pre-Dobbs baseline)
|
Incidence of SVCD-related death per 100,000 live births
|
3.1 p.p. increase (vs. pre-Dobbs baseline)
|
Ban beyond 13 weeks of gestation scenario
|
Incidence of SVCD per 100,000 live births
|
10.0 p.p. increase (vs. pre-Dobbs baseline)
|
Incidence of SVCD-related heart surgery per 100,000 live births
|
8.8 p.p. increase (vs. pre-Dobbs baseline)
|
Incidence of SVCD-related death per 100,000 live births
|
2.8 p.p. increase (vs. pre-Dobbs baseline)
|
Ban beyond 20 weeks of gestation scenario
|
Incidence of SVCD per 100,000 live births
|
7.7 p.p. increase (vs. pre-Dobbs baseline)
|
Incidence of SVCD-related heart surgery per 100,000 live births
|
6.9 p.p. increase (vs. pre-Dobbs baseline)
|
Incidence of SVCD-related death per 100,000 live births
|
2.3 p.p. increase (vs. pre-Dobbs baseline)
|
Provider-oriented studies
|
Fellow perspectives of abortion-related training in maternal-fetal medicine fellowship: regional differences in a post-Roe world28
|
Cheng et al.
|
Cross-sectional (abstract only)
|
Maternal-fetal medicine fellows
|
June 2022
|
Survey
|
Fellowship associated with CFP fellowship
|
22.2% lower among fellows in hostile states (vs. fellows in open states)
|
Fellowship associated with FI center
|
15.3% higher among fellows in hostile states (vs. fellows in open states)
|
Fellowship faculty’s pro-abortion legislative advocacy rated as an important factor in pursuing that fellowship
|
19.5% lower among fellows in hostile states (vs. fellows in open states)
|
Personal participation in pro-abortion advocacy
|
17.6% lower among fellows in hostile states (vs. fellows in open states)
|
Trainee opinions regarding the effect of the Dobbs v. Jackson women’s health organization Supreme Court decision on obstetrics and gynecology training29
|
Meriwether et al.
|
Cross-sectional (abstract only)
|
OB-GYN residents and fellows
|
October 31, 2022
|
Survey
|
Believes they will have to stop providing standard of care in this area during training post-Dobbs:
|
Early pregnancy loss
|
4.98–7.4%
|
Fetal demise in second trimester and beyond
|
10.77–13.1%
|
Pregnancy of unknown location
|
10.73–13.1%
|
Ectopic pregnancy
|
5.02–8.3%
|
Molar pregnancy
|
4.98–7.4%
|
Assisted reproductive technologies involving embryos
|
9.2–10.7%
|
Induced abortion in first trimester (if rape or incest)
|
31.7–34.4%
|
Induced abortion in first trimester (if maternal or fetal health outcomes)
|
25.8–29.5%
|
Induced abortion in first trimester (any)
|
35.1–41.8%
|
Induced abortion in second trimester (if rape or incest)
|
34.4–37.8%
|
Induced abortion in second trimester (if maternal or fetal health outcomes)
|
31.0-31.1%
|
Induced abortion in second trimester (any)
|
38.5–40.8%
|
Management of abortion complications
|
48.36–51.2%
|
Concern for facing charges for providing standard of care in this area during training post-Dobbs:
|
Early pregnancy loss
|
31.7–32.0%
|
Fetal demise in second trimester and beyond
|
29.1–28.7%
|
Pregnancy of unknown location
|
36.1–41.5%
|
Ectopic pregnancy
|
29.5–35.1%
|
Molar pregnancy
|
26.5–27.1%
|
Assisted reproductive technologies involving embryos
|
31.2–38.2%
|
Induced abortion in first trimester (if rape or incest)
|
53.3–54.9%
|
Induced abortion in first trimester (if maternal or fetal health outcomes)
|
53.7–57.4%
|
Induced abortion in first trimester (any)
|
55.6–57.4%
|
Induced abortion in second trimester (if rape or incest)
|
56.6–59.7%
|
Induced abortion in second trimester (if maternal or fetal health outcomes)
|
57.4–58.7%
|
Induced abortion in second trimester (any)
|
62.3–63.0%
|
Management of abortion complications
|
48.36–51.2%
|
Projected implications of overturning Roe v Wade on abortion training in U.S. obstetrics and gynecology residency programs30
|
Vinekar et al.
|
Commentary (full text available)
|
Residents in accredited U.S. OB-GYN residency programs
|
—
|
American Medical Association database of OB-GYN residency programs in the U.S. and the Guttmacher Institute
|
Proportion of OB-GYN residents in states certain to ban abortion
|
38.4%
|
Proportion of OB-GYN residency programs in states certain to ban abortion
|
38.8%
|
Proportion of OB-GYN residents in states likely to ban abortion
|
5.5%
|
Proportion of OB-GYN residency programs in states likely to ban abortion
|
5.9%
|
Forensic nurses' understanding of emergency contraception mechanisms: implications for access to emergency contraception31
|
Downing et al.
|
Cross-sectional (full text available)
|
|
|
Survey
|
Proportion that believe their prescribing of EC will increase after Dobbs
|
6.94%
|
Proportion that believe their prescribing of EC will decrease after Dobbs
|
0.58%
|
Proportion that believe their prescribing of EC will not change after Dobbs
|
79.77%
|
Proportion unsure if their prescribing of EC will change after Dobbs
|
12.72%
|
Presence and absence: crisis pregnancy centers and abortion facilities in the contemporary reproductive justice landscape32
|
Thomsen et al.
|
Modeling (full text available)
|
—
|
—
|
Advancing New Standards In Reproductive Health database, Reproaction Fake Clinic database, IPUMS National Historical GIS project, National Center for Health Statistics
|
Proportion living in areas with CPCs closer than abortion facilities after Dobbs
|
26.5 p.p. increase (vs. pre-Dobbs)
|
Proportion living in areas with abortion facilities closer than CPCs after Dobbs
|
0.1 p.p. decrease (vs. pre-Dobbs)
|
Proportion living in areas with CPCs and abortion facilities equidistant after Dobbs
|
26.4 p.p. decrease (vs. pre-Dobbs)
|
Proportion living in areas within 30 minutes of an abortion facility after Dobbs
|
24.7 p.p. decrease (vs. pre-Dobbs)
|
Proportion living in areas within 60 minutes of an abortion facility after Dobbs
|
9.6 p.p. decrease (vs. pre-Dobbs)
|
Proportion living in areas within more than 120 minutes of an abortion facility after Dobbs
|
38.9 p.p. decrease (vs. pre-Dobbs)
|