A Web-Based Geolocated Directory of Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) in the United States: Description of CPC Map Methods and Design Features and Analysis of Baseline Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) are nonprofit organizations that aim to dissuade people considering abortion. The centers frequently advertise in misleading ways and provide inaccurate health information. CPCs in the United States are becoming more medicalized and gaining government funding and support. We created a CPC Map, a Web-based geolocated database of all CPCs currently operating in the United States, to help individuals seeking health services know which centers are CPCs and to facilitate academic research. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the methods used to develop and maintain the CPC Map and baseline findings regarding the number and distribution of CPCs in the United States. We also examined associations between direct state funding and the number of CPCs and relationships between the number of CPCs and state legislation proposed in 2018-2019 to ban all or most abortions. METHODS: In 2018, we used standard protocols to identify and verify the locations of and services offered by CPCs operating in the United States. The CPC Map was designed to be a publicly accessible, user-friendly searchable database that can be easily updated. We examined the number of CPCs and, using existing data, the ratios of women of reproductive age to CPCs and CPCs to abortion facilities nationally and by region, subregion, and state. We used unadjusted and adjusted negative binomial regression models to examine associations between direct state funding and the number of CPCs. We used unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models to examine associations between the number of CPCs by state and legislation introduced in 2018-2019 to ban all or most abortions. Adjusted models controlled for the numbers of women of reproductive age and abortion facilities per state. RESULTS: We identified 2527 operating CPCs. Of these, 66.17% (1672/2527) offered limited medical services. Nationally, the ratio of women of reproductive age to CPCs was 29,304:1. The number of CPCs per abortion facility was 3.2. The South and Midwest had the greatest numbers of CPCs. The number of CPCs per state ranged from three (Rhode Island) to 203 (Texas). Direct funding was associated with a greater number of CPCs in unadjusted (coefficient: 0.87, 95% CI 0.51-1.22) and adjusted (coefficient: 0.45, 95% CI 0.33-0.57) analyses. The number of CPCs was associated with the state legislation introduced in 2018-2019 to ban all or most abortions in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.06) and adjusted analyses (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: CPCs are located in every state and particularly prevalent in the South and Midwest. Distribution of CPCs in the United States is associated with state funding and extreme proposals to restrict abortion. Researchers should track CPCs over time and examine factors that influence their operations and impact on public health and policy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".