CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 127Reproductive Health and ContraceptionMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsGlobal Maternal and Child Health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

Comparison of Health, Development, Maternal Bonding, and Poverty Among Children Born After Denial of Abortion vs After Pregnancies Subsequent to an Abortion

Open access
Foster, Diana Greene, Biggs, M. Antonia, Raifman, Sarah, Gipson, Jessica, Kimport, Katrina, Rocca, Corinne H.·2018·JAMA Pediatrics
DOI 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.1785PMC PMC6248140
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Importance: Evidence indicates that there are potential health, development, and maternal bonding consequences for children born from unwanted pregnancies. Objective: To examine the association of women receiving or being denied a wanted abortion with their children's health and well-being. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 5-year longitudinal observational study with a quasi-experimental design conducted between January 18, 2008, and January 25, 2016, examined women who received abortions just under the gestational age limit of 30 abortion facilities across the United States and women who were denied abortion just beyond the gestational age limit in these facilities. Analyses compared the children of 146 women who were denied an abortion (index children) with children born to 182 women who received an abortion and had a subsequent child within 5 years (subsequent children). Interview-to-interview retention averaged 94.5% (6895 of 7293) across the 11 semi-annual interviews. Exposures: Being born after denial of abortion vs after a new pregnancy subsequent to an abortion. Main Outcomes and Measures: Perinatal outcomes and child health, child development, maternal bonding, socioeconomics, and household structure. Results: This study included 328 women who had children during the study period (mean [SD] age at study recruitment, 23.7 [4.9] years). There were no differences by study group in consent to participate in the study, completion of first interview, or continuation in the study. Among the 328 children in the study (146 index children and 182 subsequent children), there were 163 girls and 165 boys. Perinatal and child health outcomes were not different between subsequent and index children, and there was no clear pattern of delayed child development. However, mixed-effects models adjusting for clustered recruitment and multiple observations per child revealed that poor maternal bonding was more common for index children compared with subsequent children (9% vs 3%; adjusted odds ratio, 5.14; 95% CI, 1.48-17.85). Index children lived in households with lower incomes relative to the federal poverty level than did subsequent children (101% vs 132% of federal poverty level; adjusted regression coefficient, -0.31; 95% CI, -0.52 to -0.10), and were more likely to live in households without enough money to pay for basic living expenses (72% vs 55%; adjusted odds ratio, 5.16; 95% CI, 2.34-11.40). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that access to abortion enables women to choose to have children at a time when they have more financial and emotional resources to devote to their children.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.1785

Cites

51 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 57 references

5 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. US Department of Health and Human Services, 2012, Annual update of the HHS poverty guidelines., Fed Regist, 77, 4034

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–127 of 127

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Foster, D. G., Biggs, M. A., Raifman, S., Gipson, J., Kimport, K., & Rocca, C. H.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Foster, Diana Greene
ORCID
Venue
JAMA Pediatrics
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2018-11-01
Volume
172
Issue
11
Pages
1053
ISSN
  • 1072-4710 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-6203
DOI
10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.1785
PMC
PMC6248140
OpenAlex
W2892333483
Cited by
127
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2
FWCI
7.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
Keywords
unwanted pregnancy, maternal bonding, child development, child health, perinatal outcomes, household poverty, household composition, subsequent pregnancy, gestational age limits, abortion clinics, child well-being, maternal mental health, maternal anxiety, maternal stress, maternal substance use, maternal education, maternal income
MeSH terms
Abortion Applicants, Abortion, Induced, Adolescent, Adult, Child Development, Child Welfare, Family Planning Services, Female, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Mother-Child Relations, Object Attachment, Poverty, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Pregnancy, Unwanted, United States, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review