MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Differences in Abortion Use by Sexual Orientation in 3 National Cohorts

2025· article· en· W4410120372 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Payal Chakraborty, Sarah McKetta, Colleen A. Reynolds, Mikaela H. Smith, Heidi Moseson, Ariel L. Beccia, Kodiak R. S. Soled, Tabor Hoatson, Aimee K. Huang, A. Heather Eliassen, Sebastien Haneuse, Brittany M. Charlton

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityNational Cancer InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
KeywordsAbortionSexual orientationLesbianMedicinePregnancyCohortReproductive healthCohort studyDemographyUnintended pregnancySexual minorityObstetricsGynecologyPsychologyPopulationFamily planningSocial psychologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Sexual minority individuals have less access to high-quality reproductive health care-including contraceptive care-and have higher rates of unintended pregnancies than their heterosexual peers. Little is known about differences in abortion use by sexual orientation. Objective: To quantify differences in abortion use by sexual orientation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study using data from 3 North American cohorts included pregnancies between 1959 and 2024. Nurses' Health Study II (NHS2) is a cohort of female nurses in the US, Growing Up Today Study (GUTS) is a cohort of NHS2's offspring, and Nurses' Health Study 3 (NHS3) is a cohort of nurses and nursing students in the US and Canada. Exposure: Sexual orientation (completely heterosexual, heterosexual with same-sex experience, mostly heterosexual, bisexual, and lesbian or gay). Main Outcome and Measure: Participant-reported pregnancy outcome (induced abortion vs any other pregnancy outcome). Results: Of a total of 235 948 pregnancies (with nonmissing pregnancy outcome data) across 85 640 participants, 211 095 pregnancies (89.5%) were to completely heterosexual participants, and 24 853 (10.5%) were to sexual minority participants. In GUTS and NHS3, there were a higher percentage of pregnancies to sexual minority participants (1546 [17.7%] and 7425 [19.7%], respectively) than in NHS2 (15 882 [8.4%]). In the cohorts combined, 20 243 pregnancies (8.6%) ended with an induced abortion. Compared with pregnancies to completely heterosexual participants, those to sexual minority participants were more likely to end with an induced abortion (risk ratio [RR], 1.93 [95% CI, 1.85-2.02]). Among sexual minority subgroups, heterosexual with same-sex experience (RR, 1.56 [95% CI, 1.47-1.66]), mostly heterosexual (RR, 2.15 [95% CI, 2.03-2.29]), bisexual (RR, 2.84 [95% CI, 2.49-3.23]), and lesbian or gay participants (RR, 2.52 [95% CI, 2.14-2.95]) had higher abortion use. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study using data from retrospectively reported pregnancies from 3 longitudinal cohorts, all sexual minority groups had increased abortion use compared with completely heterosexual participants, and abortion use was heterogeneous; given the higher use of abortion among sexual minority populations, they are more likely to be disproportionately impacted by the narrowing of abortion access in the US after the Supreme Court Dobbs decision. Future research is needed to understand the pathways that contribute to the unique abortion care needs of sexual minority individuals, in order to provide adequate support for abortion seekers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207