MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384008065 · doi:10.1101/2023.07.10.23292460

Implications of <i>Dobbs v.</i> Jackson for patients and providers: a scoping review

2023· review· en· W4384008065 on OpenAlexaff
David T. Zhu, Lucy Zhao, Tala Alzoubi, Novera Shenin, Teerkasha Baskaran, Julia Tikhonov, Catherine Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreEarl Haig Secondary SchoolUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOAbortionSocial mediaReproductive healthHealth careScopusMedicinePolitical scienceMEDLINEPsychologyPopulationLawEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract 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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.364
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.364
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.007
Bibliometrics0.0270.027
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0080.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.129
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207