Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

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

View ORCID ProfileDavid T. Zhu, Lucy Zhao, Tala Alzoubi, Novera Shenin, Teerkasha Baskaran, Julia Tikhonov, View ORCID ProfileCatherine Wang
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.10.23292460
David T. Zhu
1School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for David T. Zhu
  • For correspondence: davetzhu{at}gmail.com
Lucy Zhao
2Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tala Alzoubi
3Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Novera Shenin
2Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Teerkasha Baskaran
4Bayview Secondary School, Richmond Hill, ON, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Julia Tikhonov
5School of Interdisciplinary Sciences, Faculty of Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Catherine Wang
6Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Catherine Wang
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

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.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Not Applicable

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

N/A

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Not Applicable

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Not Applicable

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Not Applicable

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted July 12, 2023.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Implications of Dobbs v. Jackson for patients and providers: a scoping review
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Implications of Dobbs v. Jackson for patients and providers: a scoping review
David T. Zhu, Lucy Zhao, Tala Alzoubi, Novera Shenin, Teerkasha Baskaran, Julia Tikhonov, Catherine Wang
medRxiv 2023.07.10.23292460; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.10.23292460
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Implications of Dobbs v. Jackson for patients and providers: a scoping review
David T. Zhu, Lucy Zhao, Tala Alzoubi, Novera Shenin, Teerkasha Baskaran, Julia Tikhonov, Catherine Wang
medRxiv 2023.07.10.23292460; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.10.23292460

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)