Yang Teresa J K, Smith Mikaela H, Kavanaugh Megan L, Ricks JaNelle M, Gallo Maria F
College of Medicine, The Ohio State University (OSU), Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
College of Public Health, OSU, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2025 Jun 4;20(6):e0324228. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324228. eCollection 2025.
Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) typically hold missions of preventing abortion, opposing contraception, and promoting abstinence outside of marriage. They often lack transparency about their services, posing as medical facilities or even as abortion clinics. Given the lack of evidence on the extent to which people use crisis pregnancy centers, we sought to quantify the prevalence of ever attendance at a CPC among adult, reproductive-aged women from Survey of Women data from four states.
We analyzed cross-sectional data from population-representative surveys conducted among adult, reproductive-age women in 2018-2019 in Iowa (N = 2,425) and in 2019-2020 in Arizona (N = 2,132), New Jersey (N = 2,132), and Wisconsin (N = 2,095). Using survey weights, we calculated the prevalences of ever CPC attendance among those with a history of pregnancy or testing for pregnancy. We focused on this subset as this comprises the women who might have had cause to attend a CPC. We also used Poisson regression to test associations between demographic correlates and ever attendance by state.
Prevalence of ever CPC attendance in adult, reproductive-age women with a history of pregnancy or testing for pregnancy was statistically significantly higher in Arizona (20.2%; 95% CI, 17.6%-23.1%) compared to Iowa (14.5%; 95% CI, 12.6%-16.7%), Wisconsin (14.3%; 95% CI, 12.1%-16.8%).), and New Jersey (11.6%; 95% CI, 9.6%-13.8%). Age, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status were not correlated with ever CPC attendance among women with a history of pregnancy or testing for pregnancy in Arizona, Iowa, and New Jersey. In Wisconsin, prevalence was lower among those in the lowest socioeconomic stratum.
Ever attendance at CPCs is not rare, ranging from 11.6%-20.2% in the four states evaluated. The present study serves as an important baseline given that the prevalence may change as pregnancy options become increasingly restricted.
危机怀孕中心（CPCs）通常肩负着防止堕胎、反对避孕以及倡导婚前禁欲的使命。它们在服务方面往往缺乏透明度，伪装成医疗机构甚至堕胎诊所。鉴于缺乏关于人们使用危机怀孕中心程度的证据，我们试图根据来自四个州的女性调查数据，量化成年育龄女性中曾去过危机怀孕中心的比例。
我们分析了2018 - 2019年在爱荷华州（N = 2425）以及2019 - 2020年在亚利桑那州（N = 2132）、新泽西州（N = 2132）和威斯康星州（N = 2095）对成年育龄女性进行的具有人口代表性的横断面调查数据。使用调查权重，我们计算了有怀孕史或妊娠检测史的女性中曾去过危机怀孕中心的比例。我们关注这一子集，因为其中包含可能有理由前往危机怀孕中心的女性。我们还使用泊松回归来检验各州人口统计学相关因素与曾去过危机怀孕中心之间的关联。
有怀孕史或妊娠检测史的成年育龄女性中，曾去过危机怀孕中心的比例在亚利桑那州（20.2%；95%置信区间，17.6% - 23.1%）显著高于爱荷华州（14.5%；95%置信区间，12.6% - 16.7%）、威斯康星州（14.3%；95%置信区间，12.1% - 16.8%）和新泽西州（11.6%；95%置信区间，9.6% - 13.8%）。在亚利桑那州、爱荷华州和新泽西州，有怀孕史或妊娠检测史的女性中，年龄、种族/族裔和社会经济地位与曾去过危机怀孕中心并无关联。在威斯康星州，社会经济阶层最低的人群中这一比例较低。
在接受评估的四个州中，曾去过危机怀孕中心的情况并不罕见，比例在11.6%至20.2%之间。鉴于随着怀孕选择受到越来越多限制，这一比例可能会发生变化，本研究提供了一个重要的基线数据。
