Cited by 4Reproductive Health and ContraceptionEthics and bioethics in healthcareInternational Human Rights and Reproductive Law

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Crisis Pregnancy Centers in the United States: Post-Dobbs Characteristics and Changes

Lambert, Danielle N., Luisi, Nicole, Johnson, Erin R., Baugh, Rachel, Swartzendruber, Andrea·2025·American Journal of Public Health

Abstract

Objective. To enumerate crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in the United States in 2024 and examine changes before and after Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization and associations with selected state characteristics. Methods. Repeated cross-sectional analyses used CPC Map data to describe the number of CPCs in the United States after Dobbs and examine changes since 2021. We used negative binomial models to compare CPC counts by selected state characteristics. Results. In 2024, 2633 CPCs operated in the United States, a 3.3% increase from 2021. Nationally, 71.7% offered nondiagnostic ultrasounds, 28.0% advertised sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing, 17.2% STI treatment, 6.8% HIV testing, and 3.8% unproven “abortion reversal” on-site. The total count of CPCs in 2024 was 230% greater in states with a grant program (95% confidence interval [CI] = 148%, 357%; P < .001), and the rate of newly identified and re-opened CPCs was 1.81 times (95% CI = 1.15, 2.84; P = .010) greater, adjusting for CPCs in 2021. Conclusions. Despite being largely unregulated and failing to adhere to medical and ethical practice standards, CPCs proliferated and posed risk nationally, particularly in states with CPC grant programs. Health professionals should educate themselves and their communities about local CPCs and risks. ( Am J Public Health. 2025;115(6):924–935. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2025.308055 )

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2105/ajph.2025.308055

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Show all 15 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Bryant AG, 2018, AMA J Ethics., 20, 269
  2. Kindy K., Washington Post.
  3. Kruesi K., 2022, AP News.
  4. Morel LC., The Guardian.
  5. Henderson G., Rewire News Group.
  6. Iqbal M., WBEZ Chicago.
  7. Hudson M., ABC 57.

Metadata

Authors
Lambert, D. N., Luisi, N., Johnson, E. R., Baugh, R., & Swartzendruber, A.
Affiliations
University of Georgia (US)
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Published
2025-06
Volume
115
Issue
6
Pages
924-935
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
OpenAlex
W4410355318
Cited by
4
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 4
FWCI
3.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Human Rights and Reproductive Law
Keywords
crisis pregnancy centers, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, abortion access, sexually transmitted infection testing, HIV testing, state health policy
MeSH terms
Adult, Crisis Intervention, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, United States

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