The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Impact of Clinic Closures on Women Obtaining Abortion Services After Implementation of a Restrictive Law in Texas
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the additional burdens experienced by Texas abortion patients whose nearest in-state clinic was one of more than half of facilities providing abortion that had closed after the introduction of House Bill 2 in 2013. METHODS: In mid-2014, we surveyed Texas-resident women seeking abortions in 10 Texas facilities (n = 398), including both Planned Parenthood-affiliated clinics and independent providers that performed more than 1500 abortions in 2013 and provided procedures up to a gestational age of at least 14 weeks from last menstrual period. We compared indicators of burden for women whose nearest clinic in 2013 closed and those whose nearest clinic remained open. RESULTS: For women whose nearest clinic closed (38%), the mean one-way distance traveled was 85 miles, compared with 22 miles for women whose nearest clinic remained open (P ≤ .001). After adjustment, more women whose nearest clinic closed traveled more than 50 miles (44% vs 10%), had out-of-pocket expenses greater than $100 (32% vs 20%), had a frustrated demand for medication abortion (37% vs 22%), and reported that it was somewhat or very hard to get to the clinic (36% vs 18%; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Clinic closures after House Bill 2 resulted in significant burdens for women able to obtain care.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction
Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (2015) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139025751 · Cited by 4,210
Risk of violence from the man involved in the pregnancy after receiving or being denied an abortion
Roberts, S. C., Biggs, M. A., Chibber, K. S., Gould, H., Rocca, C. H., & Foster, D. G. (2014) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-014-0144-z · Cited by 171
Cited by
Abortion Incidence and Service Availability In the United States, 2014
Jones, R. K., & Jerman, J. (2017) · Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health · doi:10.1363/psrh.12015 · Cited by 455
Reasons for and Logistical Burdens of Judicial Bypass for Abortion in Illinois
Ralph, L. J., Chaiten, L., Werth, E., Daniel, S., Brindis, C. D., & Biggs, M. A. (2021) · Journal of Adolescent Health · doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.08.025 · Cited by 22
Biggs, M. A., Ehrenreich, K., Morris, N., Blanchard, K., Bustamante, C. K., Choimorrow, S. Y., Hauser, D., Hernandez, Y., Kapp, N., Kromenaker, T., et al. (2022) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000004757 · Cited by 20
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Gerdts, C., Fuentes, L., Grossman, D., White, K., Keefe-Oates, B., Baum, S. E., Hopkins, K., Stolp, C. W., & Potter, J. E.
- Venue
- American Journal of Public Health
- Publisher
- American Public Health Association
- Published
- 2022-09
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1297-1304
- ISSN
- 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
- 1541-0048
- OpenAlex
- W2298020514
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 18.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Impact of Clinic Closures on Women Obtaining Abortion Services After Implementation of a Restrictive Law in Texas. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2105/ajph.2016.303134
- The paper
- Gerdts, C., Fuentes, L., Grossman, D., White, K., Keefe-Oates, B., Baum, S. E., Hopkins, K., Stolp, C. W., & Potter, J. E. (2022). Impact of Clinic Closures on Women Obtaining Abortion Services After Implementation of a Restrictive Law in Texas. American Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2016.303134
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.