OB-GYN Video Statistics

Key takeaways

1. OB-GYNs and their practices speaking as themselves made 63.9% of the 416 on-topic videos among YouTube’s most-viewed ‘obgyn’, ‘obstetrician’ and ‘gynecologist’ results and drew 69.1% of their views; media, TV and general creators drew 18.6% (our read, Nov 9, 2026). (Mark Studios) See details
2. The 38 OB-GYN channels placed in India drew 54.5% of those on-topic views and the 14 U.S.-placed OB-GYN channels drew 10.9%. 0 OB-GYN channels placed themselves in Florida, and 0 on-topic channels placed themselves in Palm Beach, Broward or Martin County (our read, Nov 9, 2026). (Mark Studios) See details
3. Videos of 60 seconds or less made 46.9% of the on-topic videos and drew 67.5% of their views. The most-viewed, a 16-second Short on Leopold’s maneuvers from a general-knowledge channel, had 198,090,088 views (our read, Nov 9, 2026). (Mark Studios) See details
4. The 14 U.S.-placed OB-GYN channels posted 2,777 videos in the year to Nov 9, 2026, a median of 126.5 per channel; the busiest, Alirod MD, posted 1,218. The median upload whose views we read had 2,640 views (our read). (Mark Studios) See details
5. NCHS counted 3,612,012 U.S. births in 2025. The cesarean rate was 32.4%, and 76.3% of mothers began prenatal care in the first trimester. Medicaid paid for 40.2% of births in 2024, the latest final year for payment source. (NCHS) See details
6. NCHS counted 669 maternal deaths in 2023, a rate of 18.6 per 100,000 live births; the 2023 rate was 50.3 for non-Hispanic Black women and 14.5 for non-Hispanic White women. The provisional rate for the 12 months ending December 2025 was 15.4. (NCHS) See details
7. BLS estimated 21,260 wage and salary OB-GYN jobs in May 2025, with a median annual wage of $292,910. Florida’s estimate of 1,620 jobs carries a 36.1% relative standard error, and BLS released no Florida wage figures for the occupation. (BLS) See details
8. Published counts of U.S. OB-GYNs run from 21,260 wage and salary jobs (BLS, May 2025) to 52,502 diplomates across the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s four status categories (January 1, 2026; our sum). HRSA’s model put 2025 supply at 49,170 full-time equivalents, and 22,815 OB-GYNs billed Medicare Part B in 2024. Each counts something different. (ABOG and others) See details
9. In Florida’s 2024-26 physician license-renewal survey, 1,300 OB-GYNs reported delivering babies, 14.5% fewer than the 1,521 two cycles earlier, while fewer physicians answered. 495 of the 2,108 physicians who answered said they plan to stop obstetric care within two years. (Florida Department of Health) See details
10. CMS lists 22,815 providers of type Obstetrics & Gynecology who billed Medicare Part B in 2024, down 13.5% from 26,361 in 2019; Palm Beach County had 130, Broward 120 and Martin 18 (our match of ZIP codes to counties). Medicare is a small slice of OB-GYN work: its delivery codes summed to 4,485 beneficiary counts in 2024 (our calculation). (CMS) See details
11. In a study published in 2023 of the top 100 TikTok videos tagged #IUD, videos scored 1.2 out of 5 on the DISCERN quality measure; in a 2024 study of 574 TikTok videos on oral contraceptives the mean modified DISCERN score was 1.63; and in 1,000 Instagram menopause posts collected in June 2024, 66.1% promoted branded menopause supplements. (Obstetrics & Gynecology; AJOG Global Reports; BJOG) See details
12. WHO’s current fact sheet says endometriosis affects an estimated 10% of reproductive-age women and names no study on the page; a 1997 review said the 10% estimate rests on a single cohort study. In 2022-2023, 6.2% of U.S. women ages 20-49 said they had ever been diagnosed, and a 2020 review found general-population studies ranging from 0.7% to 8.6%. (WHO; NCHS; journals) See details
13. The 10-15% cesarean rate comes from a 1985 WHO-sponsored panel and was meant for whole populations. WHO’s 2015 statement says that above 10% across a population there is no evidence mortality improves, and that the aim should be to provide cesareans to women in need rather than a specific rate. Worldwide, 21.1% of women gave birth by cesarean in the latest data (2010-2018). (WHO) See details
14. 1,284 Form 10-K filings from 2001 to 2025 named an OB-GYN word, and 185 of them also contained video or videos. Of the 191 such filings through Nov 9, 2026, 56 mainly used the word for marketing or patient-facing video (our EDGAR count and read). (SEC EDGAR) See details

Who makes the most-viewed OB-GYN videos on YouTube?

OB-GYN doctors and practices speaking as themselves made 63.9% of the on-topic videos among YouTube's most-viewed 'obgyn', 'obstetrician' and 'gynecologist' results on November 9, 2026, and drew 69.1% of their lifetime views (our count). No other class of channel comes close. We read YouTube's own view-sorted search results for those three words, the first four pages of each, through the YouTube Data API with no country filter on that one date, and classified every channel by hand from its own text and sample videos. This is one search ranking on one date, not a census of OB-GYN video. Credentials were not checked; a channel's class rests on what its own text says. We read metadata and did not watch the videos.

The three lists held 500 unique videos from 273 channels, with 1,749,240,332 lifetime views in all. 84 of them, 16.8% of the videos and 14.8% of the views, were off-topic or counted-only and are left out below. That leaves 416 on-topic videos with 1,491,076,419 views, and the median one had 947,310 views. View counts are lifetime snapshots and include ad views.

The class held 73 OB-GYN doctor or practice channels, and the sample also held 6 channels telling a person's own pregnancy or gynecology-visit story, which appear in our tables only as a class and counts, with no channel title, handle, link, date or per-channel view figure. 14 channels in all are published that way. A further 50 videos in named channels are withheld one by one, because their title or description shows or names a private patient, a newborn or child, or a real birth, or names a person's own gynecology visit or assault claim, or carries an explicit title. Together 56 of the on-topic videos are withheld and they drew 25.2% of the on-topic views. Where a title or description left doubt about whether a newborn or a private person is shown, the video is withheld.

How much of a YouTube search for 'gynecologist' or 'obstetrician' is about OB-GYNs?

Most of it: in the 'gynecologist' list on November 9, 2026, off-topic and counted-only videos were 12.6% of the videos and drew 7.2% of the views (our count, YouTube's most-viewed results for that word), and in 'obgyn' they were 10.2% of the videos and 5.4% of the views. The 'obstetrician' list was the least clean, at 25.6% of the videos and 22.6% of the views, because the letters OB also mean other things: most of its off-topic views went to songs, led by 'Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da', and Japanese and Korean OB (old boys) baseball games, office-boy sitcoms and golf out of bounds filled most of the rest. Songs and song covers drew 67.7% of the off-topic and counted-only views across all three lists.

One class is reported as a count only. 14 videos from 8 channels were sexualised or roleplay material; none of them is named, linked or described further, under this page's publication rules, and their rows carry no title, channel, identifier, date, length or view figure.

How much of the on-topic viewing comes from a few channels?

The ten biggest channels drew 67.5% of the on-topic views in our November 9, 2026 sample and the three biggest drew 42.8% (our count, no tie at either cut-off; withheld channels are counted in the ranking but not named). The largest was Dr. Silpahasa, an OB-GYN in Visakhapatnam, India, with 16.8% of the on-topic views and 24.3% of the views of the OB-GYN class. Second was Little More Knowledge, a Hindi general-knowledge channel, with 13.3%, which comes from a single Short on the Leopold maneuvers with 198,090,088 views, the most-viewed on-topic video in the sample. Third was Dr Shaifali Dadhich, in India, with 12.7%. Dr Shaifali Dadhich's most-viewed public video, a Hindi-language Short on when and how cesarean stitches are removed, had 45,426,050 views. The largest U.S. channel, Dr. Jennifer Lincoln, drew 6.8%. Without Dr. Silpahasa, OB-GYN doctors and practices drew 62.9% of the on-topic views, compared with 69.1% with her.

How do the 'obgyn', 'obstetrician' and 'gynecologist' lists differ?

OB-GYNs and practices drew 85.6% of the on-topic views in the 'gynecologist' list on November 9, 2026, 79.8% in 'obgyn' and only 49.4% in 'obstetrician' (our count). The gap is mostly one video: media and general creators drew 35.3% of the 'obstetrician' views, against 3.0% in 'obgyn' and 5.7% in 'gynecologist', because the Leopold maneuver Short with 198,090,088 views sits in that list. These are lifetime views of the on-topic part of each list, so a single very large video can move a whole column.

Where are OB-GYNs' channels?

Of the 73 OB-GYN doctor or practice channels in our November 9, 2026 sample, 38 were placed in India and 14 in the United States. Channels placed in India drew 54.5% of the on-topic views, and U.S.-placed OB-GYNs drew 10.9% on 14.7% of the on-topic videos (our count, from each channel's country setting or, where that was blank, the place its own text names). Channels in Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea, Thailand, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan made up most of the rest, and 9 channels named no place.

No Florida-placed OB-GYN appeared: 0 channels of that class. 1 named channel placed itself in Florida, with 1,044,811 views: Doctor High Yield, MD, a surgery resident at the University of Central Florida who posts USMLE review, and it is not an OB-GYN's channel. 0 on-topic channels placed themselves in Palm Beach, Broward or Martin County. A global view-sorted search will not surface a local practice, so this says nothing about whether Florida OB-GYNs post video.

What do on-topic titles cover, and how long are the videos?

Titles naming birth, delivery, labor, cesarean or postpartum care made 18.5% of the on-topic videos in our November 9, 2026 sample and drew 33.0% of the views, and titles naming pregnancy made 24.8% and drew 29.4% (our count, hashtags included, words not topics; every matching title was read by hand and the misses corrected). Other subjects were rare: menstrual periods, PCOS, endometriosis or fibroids appeared in 33 titles, a Pap test, HPV, a pelvic exam or a first gynecologist visit in 13, contraception in 11, abortion or a term for the procedure in 9, miscarriage, stillbirth or ectopic pregnancy in 6 and menopause in 3. Those counts are shaped by the search words, which name a specialty rather than a topic.

Videos of 60 seconds or less made 46.9% of the on-topic videos and drew 67.5% of the views; in the OB-GYN class, 53.4% ran 60 seconds or less. Videos over 20 minutes long made 12.3% of the on-topic videos and drew 2.9% of the views. 66.1% of the on-topic videos had been published since the start of 2024. YouTube's containsSyntheticMedia field was present on 0 of the 500 videos, and 0 on-topic videos carried the made-for-kids designation. An absent field says nothing either way about how a video was made: one on-topic channel, MyGynec, says in the description of its most-viewed sample video that it is an AI 3D animation.

How often do U.S. OB-GYNs' channels post?

The median U.S.-placed OB-GYN channel in our sample posted 126.5 videos in the 365 days to November 9, 2026 (our count, every upload in the window read through the YouTube Data API that day). Together the 14 channels posted 2,777 videos in that year, 9 of them posted 100 or more and 1 went a year without posting. The spread is wide: Alirod MD, an OB/GYN from Puerto Rico, posted 1,218, and the three busiest channels posted 65.0% of the group's uploads. Across the uploads whose views we read, the median video had 2,640 views by the read date and 56.3% ran 60 seconds or less. Views were not read for 718 of Alirod MD's uploads because our API budget ran out. These are the channels that surfaced in a view-sorted search, so they are not a sample of American OB-GYNs.

Who makes the women’s health videos on YouTube and TikTok?

Across six peer-reviewed studies published from 2020 to 2025 that counted the videos made by doctors or other health professionals, the share ran from 10% to 44% (our calculation). Each study sampled top results for one topic and defined “doctor” or “health professional” its own way, so this is a spread across samples and not a share of all women’s health video. Every figure in this section comes from the published PubMed abstract, not the full paper. Abstracts differ in what they report, and many give a publication date but no collection date.

The lowest share in that group is a TikTok sample from August to September 2023: of 100 videos under the top five contraception hashtags, 10% were made by medical professionals (Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health). The same 100 videos had collectively received 4.85 billion views (Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health). The highest is a 2024 study of the 100 most popular YouTube and TikTok videos about contraceptive implants, where health care professionals uploaded 44 (Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology). Among the 10 most influential TikTok creators on menopause, whose 834 videos from April to October 2025 were analysed in a 2026 study, one was a medical professional; 13.2% of those videos focused on product endorsements (Menopause).

Patients were the largest group in several samples. Of the top TikTok videos under “endometriosis surgery” on September 22, 2024, 80% of those included were created by patients (Facts, Views & Vision in ObGyn). Of the top 150 TikTok videos tagged #PapSmear in September 2023, patients created 60.7% and health care providers 39.3% (Gynecologic Oncology Reports). Non-healthcare creators produced 76.4% of 458 TikTok videos about intrauterine devices in a 2026 study (Healthcare).

Commercial interest shows up in several samples. A financial conflict of interest was present in 45% of top TikTok posts and 89% of top Instagram posts about polycystic ovary syndrome in a 2024 study (Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology). In 1,000 Instagram posts under 10 menopause hashtags collected in June 2024, 661 or 66.1% promoted branded menopause supplements, and 18.3% were written by credentialed clinicians (BJOG). Our PubMed searches on November 9, 2026 did not return a DISCERN-scored YouTube study of menopause, which is why the menopause figures here come from TikTok and Instagram.

How do studies score the quality of these videos?

Most of these studies scored the information low: the top 100 TikTok videos tagged #IUD in a study published in January 2023 scored 1.2 out of 5 on DISCERN (Obstetrics & Gynecology). A YouTube endometriosis sample published in 2025 was an exception, with a median DISCERN score of 67.5 (Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada). DISCERN, the Global Quality Scale (GQS) and the JAMA benchmark are the usual tools; higher is better on each. DISCERN appears on more than one scale in these abstracts, so a score out of 5 cannot be compared with a score out of 75. These studies sample top-ranked videos at one moment, and none of them measures whether watching changed anyone’s health.

Videos from doctors or other health professionals scored higher in several of these studies, including the oral contraceptive, polycystic ovary syndrome and endometriosis samples (AJOG Global Reports) (Healthcare) (Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada). Two did not fit that pattern: a #PapSmear study found no significant difference between provider and patient videos (Gynecologic Oncology Reports), and in the cesarean pain study DISCERN did not differ by video source and personal vlogs had the highest content score (JMIR Infodemiology). Popularity is a weak guide to reliability in one 2024 study: among 167 YouTube videos on pelvic floor physical therapy, the correlation between popularity and a reliability score was 0.292, which the authors called weak (Urogynecology). In Coleman’s TikTok sample provider videos drew most views, unlike the oral contraceptive sample, where health care professionals received fewer views; Coleman’s sample covers only videos already coded as educational (Contraception and Reproductive Medicine).

Does video education change anything for pregnant patients?

A 2022 systematic review of digital maternal patient education counted 69% of 55 studies reporting significant patient outcomes, and found videos in 25.5% of them; video produced the highest rate of positive outcomes, without statistical significance (Patient Education and Counseling). In the trials below, knowledge rose where it was measured, and labor length and breastfeeding duration did not change. A 2026 meta-analysis of online antenatal education covering 4,982 participants found no statistically significant effect on depression, anxiety, fear of childbirth or self-efficacy, and its authors call the pooled estimates exploratory because of heterogeneity (BMC Public Health).

Do videos before gynecologic procedures reduce anxiety or improve understanding?

Results depend on the procedure and the outcome: in a 2018 randomized trial of 116 patients, adding a video to pre-hysterectomy counseling improved comprehension by 9.9% after counseling and 7.2% on the day of surgery, and scores returned to baseline 4-6 weeks after surgery (American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology). Knowledge gains recur in these trials, and anxiety results conflict. Physicians in that trial spent 8 minutes counseling patients who watched the video and 12 minutes with those who did not (American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology). In a separate 2017 trial of 100 patients, a preoperative video before pelvic reconstructive surgery did not raise preparedness (71.1% with video, 68.8% with usual care, P = .79) or shorten the encounter (American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology).

Two 2024 meta-analyses of the cesarean trials disagree about anxiety. One, of 9 trials and 1,020 participants, found an informational video before elective cesarean may have little or no effect on preoperative anxiety, on very low-certainty evidence (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.06), and probably increases satisfaction (BMC Psychology). The other, of seven randomized trials, found preoperative multimedia sessions reduced anxiety (weighted mean difference -3.10 across six trials, moderate certainty) and did not change satisfaction (Women & Health). The two pooled different numbers of trials, rated the certainty of the anxiety evidence differently and also differ on satisfaction.

What do studies find about OB-GYN telehealth and virtual prenatal care?

A 2023 systematic review found low-strength evidence of no difference between hybrid and in-person prenatal care in preterm birth (summary odds ratio 0.93) or neonatal intensive care admission (1.02), and found the evidence insufficient to evaluate most outcomes (Obstetrics & Gynecology). A 2026 meta-analysis of eight studies and 159,303 pregnancies found no significant difference in stillbirth (odds ratio 0.95) and more cesarean deliveries with hybrid care (odds ratio 1.08) (Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology). An earlier review of 47 comparative studies and 31,967 participants in very-high-HDI countries reported improved outcomes related to smoking cessation and breastfeeding and fewer high-risk monitoring office visits while maintaining maternal and fetal outcomes (Obstetrics & Gynecology).

Individual cohorts give the size of the shift and one contrary signal. At Monash Health in Australia, telehealth delivered 53% of 20,154 antenatal consultations in the first months of integration in 2020 (The Lancet), and replaced around 46% of in-person consultations over a longer period; in that later analysis, stillbirth and preterm birth did not differ significantly and gestational diabetes diagnoses were higher in the integrated period (The Lancet Digital Health). At Parkland in Dallas, which added audio-only visits, a composite adverse outcome occurred in 2.9% of the 2020 cohort and 3.0% of the 2019 cohort (JAMA Network Open). In South London, among 34,114 mother-child dyads from 2018 to 2023, high third-trimester virtual care was associated with more premature births (adjusted relative risk ratio 1.35) than low and stable virtual care; the design is observational, and the authors report an association rather than a cause (American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology).

Use by physicians rose quickly and then fell in commercial claims. In FAIR Health commercial insurance claims, 4,663 obstetrician-gynecologists provided 13,846 telehealth visits to pregnant individuals in the fourth quarter of 2020, the peak, and about 9,500 visits came from 2,800 of them in the fourth quarter of 2022 (Telemedicine and e-Health). Those claims cover commercially insured patients only. In a survey of 373 U.S. maternal-fetal medicine clinicians, 88% reported any live video visits during the pandemic, up from 29% before it (Telemedicine and e-Health). In 2021 online surveys, telemedicine was used for prenatal care by 42% of 750 patients and 72% of 196 providers, and the primary reason patients did not use it was that it was not offered (Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health).

One randomized trial tested video follow-up after surgery. In a 2023 noninferiority trial of 104 patients after urogynecologic surgery, satisfaction scored 75.18 with a virtual video postoperative visit and 75.14 with an in-office visit, which met the study’s noninferiority criterion (Obstetrics & Gynecology). The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the professional association for the specialty, wrote in 2025 that formalized models of prenatal care delivery have changed little since they were first published in 1930, and its guidance on tailoring prenatal care includes incorporating telemedicine (Obstetrics & Gynecology).

How many OB-GYNs are there in the United States?

The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the certifying board for the specialty, listed 52,502 diplomates across its four status categories as of January 1, 2026, by our sum of the categories on its page (American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology). The board sells certification and continuing certification to the physicians it counts. Among diplomates with time-limited certificates, 38,897 had met all continuing certification requirements, 1,002 had a participation deficit and 202 had a performance deficit, so 97.0% met all requirements (our calculation). Another 12,401 hold non-time-limited certificates earned before 1987. The board notes that this group may include people no longer in practice (American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology).

The sources below count different things, so their totals do not match. A certificate holder may not be practicing, a full-time equivalent is not a person, and a survey counts only those who answered.

The Florida report prints both of its totals and does not reconcile them. Neither is a count of all Florida OB-GYNs.

How many Florida OB-GYNs deliver babies?

1,300 Florida OB-GYNs reported delivering babies in the Florida Department of Health’s physician survey for license renewals from July 2024 to June 2026 (Florida Department of Health). 949 reported that they do not, so 57.8% of those who answered deliver babies (our calculation). The survey covers 58,172 physicians who renewed, responded and give direct patient care, out of 104,008 holding a license to actively work in Florida (Florida Department of Health). Newly licensed physicians are not surveyed. The report says the question could be widened to family physicians who deliver babies, especially in rural areas, so the count leaves them out (Florida Department of Health).

Among general obstetrician-gynecologists in that survey, 1,177 of 1,824 reported delivering babies, which is 64.5% (our calculation). The report’s callout prints 57.8% for that group, but that figure matches all OB-GYN subspecialties together and not general OB-GYNs alone (Florida Department of Health). The 1,300 includes 79 laborists, OB-GYNs whose job is hospital-based delivery (Florida Department of Health).

The count of OB-GYNs reporting deliveries fell 14.5% between the 2022-24 and 2024-26 cycles (our calculation). The number answering the question fell too, and the share who deliver moved little. Consecutive reports share a year of renewals, so the cycles are not independent, and the fall is not evidence that OB-GYNs stopped delivering.

In the same survey’s county appendix for 2024-26, 188 physicians list obstetrics and gynecology in Palm Beach County, 253 in Broward County and 15 in Martin County (Florida Department of Health). Together that is 456, or 20.4% of the 2,233 in the appendix (our calculation). These are survey respondents, not every OB-GYN practicing in those counties.

Why do Florida physicians plan to stop obstetric care?

Retirement was the most common named reason in the Florida 2024-26 survey, at 22.94% of the 728 reasons given by physicians planning to discontinue obstetric care within two years (Florida Department of Health). Liability exposure made up 15.52%, high medical malpractice litigation 12.77% and the cost of professional insurance 8.65% (Florida Department of Health). Those three legal and insurance reasons together made up 36.94% of responses (our sum). Respondents could give more than one reason. A stated plan is not an observed departure.

Is the United States short of OB-GYNs?

The national supply of ob-gyns met 93.4% of demand in 2025, by an estimate from the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Health Workforce Simulation Model that Rayburn and Xierali reported in Obstetrics & Gynecology in 2026 (Rayburn and Xierali). They projected that by 2035 all but six states will have inadequate supplies (Rayburn and Xierali). This is a model projection, not a count. One author works at the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the journal is published for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Silvestre and Lazenby (Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2026) used the same model and projected adequacy falling from 93.4% to 81.7% by 2037 (Silvestre and Lazenby). They projected supply falling from 49,170 full-time equivalents to 44,130, and 2037 adequacy of 51.4% in non-metropolitan areas against 85.1% in metropolitan ones (Silvestre and Lazenby). The two papers rest on one model, so they are not independent checks of each other.

A 2025 review by Boender and Rayburn says the median wait for a new well-woman examination with a general OB/GYN is 42 days in large metropolitan markets (Boender and Rayburn). The abstract does not name the survey behind that figure.

How much do OB-GYNs use video visits?

In the American Medical Association’s 2024 Physician Practice Benchmark Survey, 51.2% of obstetrician-gynecologists surveyed reported no video visits in the prior week (American Medical Association). 36.8% reported neither video nor audio-only visits (American Medical Association). The American Medical Association is a physician association and the survey is self-reported. It also put the share of obstetrician-gynecologists in private practice at more than 45 percent (American Medical Association).

Where has hospital obstetric care closed?

Among rural U.S. hospitals providing obstetric services in 2010, 21.2% had closed their obstetric unit by 2023 while staying open, Interrante and colleagues reported in JAMA Health Forum in 2026 (Interrante et al.). Among urban hospitals the figure was 12.6% (Interrante et al.). Of the hospitals that kept obstetric services through 2023, 41% had risk factors for future loss by the authors’ measure (Interrante et al.).

In a 2026 O&G Open study of 60,516 census tracts, losing all in-county hospital obstetric services was associated with a 13.8-minute increase in average travel time to the nearest obstetric hospital: 16.9 minutes in rural areas and 10.3 minutes in urban areas (Ranchoff et al.).

A 2025 cross-sectional study in Obstetrics & Gynecology of 14,772,210 U.S. live births classed counties by level of maternity care access. It found a maternal mortality rate of 32.25 per 100,000 live births in desert counties against 23.62 in full-access counties, and a pregnancy-related mortality rate of 43.82 against 34.72 (Atwani et al.). The study reports an association and does not establish a cause.

March of Dimes, a maternal and infant health advocacy organization, publishes a county-level maternity care deserts report. Its website terms bar crawling, scraping and caching, so its figures are not reproduced here.

How many OB-GYNs bill Medicare?

CMS’s Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners file lists 22,815 providers of type Obstetrics & Gynecology who billed Medicare Part B fee-for-service in 2024 (CMS), down 13.5% from 26,361 in 2019 (CMS) (our calculation). Read every Medicare figure in this section as a marginal count. Medicare covers few births and mostly older or disabled women, so these numbers are not OB-GYN practice volume. The file also leaves out Medicare Advantage claims and every patient outside Medicare, and it does not list providers with fewer than 11 beneficiaries. It counts people billing one payer. It is not a head count of OB-GYNs.

CMS gives each provider one type a year, assigned from the claims. A search of the 2019 and 2024 files for any type containing “Gyn” returns exactly two: Obstetrics & Gynecology and Gynecological Oncology. This page reports them separately and merges neither into the other. CMS lists 1,045 providers of type Gynecological Oncology in 2024 (CMS), up 6.5% from 981 in 2019 (CMS) (our calculation).

Florida’s Obstetrics & Gynecology count fell 12.3% from 2019 to 2024, and Florida holds 6.1% of the U.S. total in 2024 (our calculation). The file cannot say why the national count fell. A provider drops out if patients move to Medicare Advantage, if the provider falls under the 11-beneficiary floor, or if the provider stops billing Medicare, and the file does not separate those cases.

How many OB-GYNs bill Medicare in Palm Beach, Broward and Martin counties?

130 providers of type Obstetrics & Gynecology with a Palm Beach County practice address billed Medicare Part B fee-for-service in 2024, 120 in Broward County and 18 in Martin County, by our match of CMS’s by Provider file to the Census Bureau’s ZIP-to-county relationship file. The three counties hold 19.3% of Florida’s 1,387 providers of that type (our calculation). This is the same marginal count as above: it says who billed original Medicare, not how many OB-GYNs practice in each county or how many births they attend.

A ZIP code split across counties goes to the county holding most of its land, so a practice in a border ZIP can count in the neighboring county. The counts and payment sums are in this page’s aggregate CSV, which holds no provider names or NPIs.

How much does Medicare pay OB-GYNs?

Medicare paid providers of type Obstetrics & Gynecology $406.3 million (406,261,827) for Part B fee-for-service services in 2024, by our sum of CMS’s by Provider file. That is 9.2% less than the $447.6 million (447,588,287) it paid them in 2019, before inflation (our calculation). Florida’s providers of that type received $36.7 million (36,708,805) in 2024, and providers of the separate type Gynecological Oncology received $123.2 million (123,197,654) nationally (our calculation). A payment total is what Medicare paid for services. It is not a physician’s income.

A median provider is the one in the middle of the list: half received more and half received less. The median provider of type Obstetrics & Gynecology received $6,554 from Medicare Part B fee-for-service in 2024, down 12.7% from $7,506 in 2019, before inflation, and treated 46 Medicare beneficiaries, against 54 in 2019 (our calculation). The median Florida provider of that type received $8,782 in 2024, and the median provider of type Gynecological Oncology received $48,862 (our calculation).

7 providers of type Obstetrics & Gynecology received $1 million or more from Medicare Part B fee-for-service in 2024, against 4 in 2019 (our calculation). The top 10% of providers by payment received 58.0% of the Medicare Part B payments to the type in 2024 (our calculation).

The patients in these files are mostly older women. Women made up 98.8% of the beneficiary counts of providers of type Obstetrics & Gynecology in 2024, on the rows of CMS’s by Provider file that publish the split, and those beneficiaries averaged 71.2 years of age, against 69.0 in 2019 (our calculation, weighting each provider’s published average by that provider’s beneficiaries). A patient seen by two providers counts on both rows.

How few births does Medicare cover?

CMS’s national rows for delivery codes sum to 4,485 Medicare Part B fee-for-service beneficiary counts in 2024, across all specialties, down 57.2% from 10,490 in 2019 (our calculation from CMS’s by Geography and Service file, CPT 59400, 59409, 59410, 59510, 59514 and 59515). That is a sum of beneficiary counts, not a count of births: one birth can sit on two rows when different clinicians bill the delivery and the follow-up care. It is the direct evidence for the warning at the top of this section. Medicare pays for very few deliveries, so nothing here measures how much obstetric care an OB-GYN gives. The births section of this page has the counts of births themselves.

How many Medicare patients have well-woman exams, colposcopy, LEEP or hysterectomy?

705,261 Medicare beneficiaries had a cervical or vaginal cancer screening with a pelvic and clinical breast exam in an office setting in 2024 (HCPCS G0101) (CMS), down 21.3% from 896,426 in 2019 (CMS) (our calculation). These counts come from CMS’s by Geography and Service file and cover every specialty, not OB-GYNs alone. They are beneficiaries on a row, so a patient billed under two codes or in two settings counts on each row. They remain a marginal count: Medicare Part B fee-for-service only, mostly older or disabled women, no Medicare Advantage.

CMS’s fee schedule labels 57460 “Bx of cervix w/scope leep” and 57461 “Conz of cervix w/scope leep” (CMS). It labels 57522 “Conization of cervix” and names no technique, so this page keeps that code out of the LEEP sum (CMS).

Summing CMS’s national rows code by code gives 41,632 beneficiary counts for hysterectomy in 2024, down 16.0% from 49,591 in 2019; 23,372 for colposcopy of the cervix, down 27.2% from 32,109; and 930 for the two LEEP codes, down 36.5% from 1,465 (our calculation; the hysterectomy codes are listed in the aggregate CSV). These are sums of beneficiary counts, not counts of people or operations. The file cannot show why they fell. Claims of patients in Medicare Advantage are left out, so a fall can reflect patients moving plans as well as fewer procedures.

Providers of type Obstetrics & Gynecology hold 80.7% of the beneficiary counts on published lines for HCPCS G0101 and 85.0% for HCPCS Q0091 in CMS’s 2024 provider-and-service file (our calculation). Lines under 11 beneficiaries are suppressed. This page does not give that share for the surgical codes, because most OB-GYN lines for them fall under that floor. The same OB-GYN lines sum to 6,986 beneficiary counts for audio-only telephone visits (CPT 99441-99443) in 2024, and the 2019 file has no published line of that type for those codes (our calculation).

How do state Medicaid programs score on prenatal and postpartum care?

The mean across the states reporting CMS’s 2025 Adult Core Set measure was 66.7% of women age 21 and older with a live birth who had a timely prenatal care visit, and 64.6% who had a postpartum care visit between 7 and 84 days after delivery (CMS). These are Medicaid and CHIP deliveries, not all births; the births section of this page gives Medicaid’s share. “Timely” means a visit in the first trimester, on or before the enrollment start date, or within 42 days of enrollment. In the 2025 Core Set, 42 states reported the adult measure (CMS) and 50 reported the child measure, for women under age 21 (CMS).

Florida reported above the mean on all four measures in the 2025 Core Set, and on both adult measures in the 2024 Core Set. Its 2025 adult rates were 80.4% for prenatal care and 79.3% for postpartum care (CMS).

In the 2024 Core Set, Florida’s adult rates were 75.6% for prenatal care (CMS) and 73.5% for postpartum care (CMS), against state means of 69.5% and 64.6%.

These rates are not a ranking of states. States report different populations and methods, and the mean counts each reporting state once, whatever its number of births. The set of reporting states also changed between the 2024 and 2025 Core Sets, so the two means are not like for like. Florida told CMS its adult rates leave out people who moved between programs, plans or delivery systems, and its fee-for-service population (CMS). A higher reported rate does not by itself show better care.

How many states have extended postpartum Medicaid to 12 months?

50 jurisdictions, 49 states and the District of Columbia, had a 12-month postpartum Medicaid extension in place as of July 15, 2026 in KFF’s tracker (KFF) (our count of the tracker’s data file). KFF is a nonprofit health policy research, polling and news organization, and its tracker is a secondary source, not CMS’s own list. Arkansas does not appear in the file. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 gave states the option to extend postpartum coverage to 12 months (KFF). The option took effect on April 1, 2022 and was later made permanent by the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2023 (KFF).

KFF’s note for Florida says the state implemented its extension through a Section 1115 waiver (KFF). Its note for Wisconsin cites a press release from the governor’s office that the extension went into effect 7/1/2026 (KFF). The tracker records whether a state has acted. It does not count the women covered or show what the extension changed.

How many OB-GYNs does BLS count in the U.S.?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated 21,260 wage and salary jobs for obstetricians and gynecologists (SOC 29-1218) in the U.S. in May 2025, in its Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) survey of employers (BLS). The estimate has a relative standard error of 5.7% (BLS). OB-GYNs have their own BLS occupation code, so the figures in this section are specific to them unless labelled otherwise. OEWS counts jobs reported by employers and leaves out OB-GYNs who own their practices and take profits rather than a wage.

The Occupational Outlook Handbook, which also counts the self-employed, puts OB-GYNs at 22,800 U.S. jobs in 2025 (BLS). BLS’s Employment Projections put the self-employed share of those jobs at 3.8% in 2025 (BLS). The Handbook treats physicians and surgeons as one combined occupation: its lead job count, about 862,800 U.S. jobs in 2025 (BLS), covers the whole group, and OB-GYNs appear only as one line in its employment, wage and projections lists. Those OB-GYN lines are the figures we use here.

OB-GYN jobs were 2.8% of the 754,760 U.S. wage and salary jobs BLS counted in the broad Physicians group (SOC 29-1210, which does not include surgeons) in May 2025 (BLS) (our calculation). OEWS classifies jobs from what employers report, and BLS’s catch-all occupation “Physicians, all other” (SOC 29-1229) held 342,720 U.S. wage and salary jobs in May 2025 (BLS). BLS does not say how many OB-GYNs are reported there, so the 29-1218 count should not be read as a headcount of licensed OB-GYNs.

How many OB-GYN jobs are there per 100,000 women aged 15 to 44?

BLS and Census figures work out to 31.3 OEWS OB-GYN jobs per 100,000 U.S. women aged 15 to 44 in May 2025 (our calculation). The Census Bureau’s Vintage 2025 estimates put U.S. women aged 15 to 44 at 67.9 million (67,904,135) on July 1, 2025, our sum of its single-year age estimates, out of 174.0 million women (174,047,332) (Census) and a resident population of 341.8 million (341,784,857) (Census). Using the Handbook’s 22,800 jobs instead gives 33.6 per 100,000 (our calculation). Both figures count jobs, not OB-GYNs in practice, and the OEWS figure leaves out practice owners. Women aged 15 to 44 is a plain denominator, not a measure of care: OB-GYNs also see patients outside that age band, and other clinicians provide some of the same care.

How much do OB-GYNs earn?

The median annual wage for U.S. wage and salary OB-GYNs was $292,910 in May 2025, per BLS OEWS (BLS). That was 5.7 times the $50,980 median for all U.S. occupations (BLS) and 8.0% above the $271,090 median for the broad Physicians group (SOC 29-1210, which does not include surgeons) (BLS) (our calculations). These figures cover wages and salaries only, not practice owners’ profits.

The mean annual wage was $279,040, below the median (BLS). One in ten of these jobs paid less than $94,680 a year in May 2025 (BLS), and one in four paid less than $179,810 (BLS). At the top, one in four paid more than $369,390 (BLS) and one in ten paid more than $437,300 (BLS).

Among the 17 detailed physician and surgeon occupations the Occupational Outlook Handbook lists for May 2025, OB-GYNs ranked 11th by median annual wage (our calculation), below ophthalmologists at $300,080 (BLS) and above psychiatrists at $281,870 (BLS). The highest was pediatric surgeons at $559,030 (BLS), and the lowest was general pediatricians at $210,040 (BLS). Those occupations are shown here only as context; obstetricians and gynecologists are the group these wage figures describe.

Where do OB-GYNs work?

Offices of physicians employed 66.8% of U.S. wage and salary OB-GYNs in May 2025, per BLS OEWS, and general medical and surgical hospitals employed 21.6% (our calculations). Outpatient care centers held 5.0% and colleges, universities and professional schools held 5.0% (our calculations).

OEWS does not say why the median wage differs by setting. BLS has no separate industry for OB-GYN practices: they sit inside offices of physicians, the shared industry in the next section.

How many OB-GYNs work in Florida and in the Miami and Port St. Lucie areas?

BLS OEWS estimated 1,620 wage and salary OB-GYN jobs in Florida in May 2025 (BLS), 7.6% of the U.S. count (our calculation). The estimate is rough: its relative standard error is 36.1% (BLS). Florida’s location quotient was 1.19 (BLS), and the state had 0.163 OB-GYN jobs per 1,000 wage and salary jobs (BLS). A location quotient above 1 means OB-GYNs made up a larger share of wage and salary jobs in Florida than nationally.

BLS did not release any May 2025 wage estimate for Florida OB-GYNs: every Florida pay figure for SOC 29-1218 carries the footnote “Estimate not released.” OEWS published no May 2025 OB-GYN series at all for the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach metro area, which holds Palm Beach and Broward counties, or for the Port St. Lucie metro area, which holds Martin County: its data service returned no series for this occupation in either area, for any measure, even though both areas’ all-occupations estimates exist. BLS publishes no OEWS estimates for counties or for metropolitan divisions. OEWS therefore gives no OB-GYN count and no OB-GYN wage for Palm Beach, Broward or Martin counties.

Florida held 6.3% of U.S. women aged 15 to 44 on July 1, 2025 (our calculation): 4.3 million women (4,310,515), our sum of the Census Bureau’s county estimates, out of 23.5 million residents (23,462,518) (Census). Its 7.6% share of OEWS OB-GYN jobs is a little larger. That works out to 37.6 OEWS jobs per 100,000 Florida women aged 15 to 44, against 31.3 nationally (our calculation). These rates compare BLS job counts, not doctors in practice. With a relative standard error of 36.1% on the Florida count, the gap should not be read as more OB-GYN care per woman in Florida.

Census counted 272,075 women aged 15 to 44 in Palm Beach County (Census), 381,068 in Broward County (Census) and 22,801 in Martin County (Census) on July 1, 2025. Together that is 675,944, or 15.7% of Florida’s total (our calculations). BLS publishes no OB-GYN count for these counties, so no local job rate can be calculated from OEWS.

How fast are OB-GYN jobs expected to grow?

BLS projects OB-GYN jobs to grow 1.7% from 2025 to 2035, per its Employment Projections (BLS), compared with 3.6% for the broad Physicians group (BLS) and 3.5% for all occupations (BLS). The Occupational Outlook Handbook puts that at 23,200 U.S. jobs in 2035 (BLS), up from 22,800 in 2025, a gain of 400 (BLS). BLS expects about 0.5 thousand openings a year from 2025 to 2035, from growth and from replacing workers who leave the occupation (BLS). These projections count all OB-GYN jobs, including the self-employed.

The Handbook’s job outlook text discusses physicians and surgeons as one group and gives no separate reason for the OB-GYN projection. OEWS is not built for year-to-year comparison, so the Employment Projections above are the better guide to direction.

How many physician offices of all specialties are there in the U.S.?

BLS’s Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), which counts employers covered by unemployment insurance, averaged 226,698 private physician offices of all specialties in the U.S. in 2025 (BLS). OB-GYN practices are counted inside this industry, offices of physicians (NAICS 621111), which every physician specialty except mental health specialists shares, so every figure in this section covers all physician offices, not OB-GYN practices alone. The figures in the section above are the ones specific to OB-GYNs. Other specialty pages, such as our pediatrician video statistics and fertility clinic video statistics, carry the same shared figures.

Those offices averaged 2.9 million jobs (2,904,306) in 2025 (BLS), counting all staff and not only physicians, and average annual pay was $116,597 (BLS).

The Census Bureau’s County Business Patterns counted 204,617 U.S. employer physician offices of all specialties in 2023, the newest year available when we checked (Census). Census’s Nonemployer Statistics counted 190,427 U.S. physician-office businesses with no paid staff in 2024 (Census), with receipts of $19,101,964 thousand, about $19.1 billion (Census). Those two counts cover different years and different kinds of business, so we do not add them. A nonemployer is any business with no paid employees, which can include part-time or side income, so that count is not a count of full-time practices.

How many physician-office businesses of all specialties had no paid staff in 2023?

Nonemployer businesses made up 47.7% of U.S. physician-office businesses of all specialties in 2023, and 46.8% in Florida (our calculations). Those shares set Census’s 2023 Nonemployer Statistics, which counted 186,842 such businesses in the U.S. (Census) and 17,603 in Florida (Census), beside its 2023 County Business Patterns, so both inputs come from one year. A nonemployer can be side or consulting income, so this is a share of businesses on paper, not of full-time practices. Neither count separates OB-GYN practices.

How many physician offices of all specialties are there in Florida and in Palm Beach, Broward and Martin counties?

Florida averaged 21,918 private physician offices of all specialties (NAICS 621111) in 2025, per BLS’s QCEW (BLS), 9.7% of the 2025 U.S. total (our calculation). Together Palm Beach, Broward and Martin counties averaged 4,556 private physician offices of all specialties in 2025, 20.8% of Florida’s total (our calculation from QCEW annual averages).

Average pay covers all staff in these offices, not only physicians. Census’s newest Nonemployer Statistics, for 2024, counted receipts of $2,041,927 thousand, about $2.0 billion, for Florida physician-office businesses with no paid staff (Census). The table below sets the Census counts side by side. The two columns come from different years and different kinds of business, so we do not add them. Neither BLS nor Census publishes a county count of OB-GYN practices.

How much revenue do physician offices of all specialties report, and is there an OB-GYN line?

U.S. employer offices of physicians of all specialties (NAICS 621111) had receipts of $630,209,309 thousand (about $630 billion) in 2022, per the 2022 Economic Census, the Census Bureau’s full count of businesses every five years (Census). The Economic Census has no OB-GYN line: its product lines split patient-care receipts by the ICD-10 chapter of the primary diagnosis, and none of those lines names obstetrics and gynecology.

The closest line is “Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium (O00-O9A),” which brought in $25,998,906 thousand (about $26.0 billion) in 2022 (Census), or 4.1% of the receipts of all physician offices (Census). 84,660 offices (Census), 42.0% of the industry (Census), reported that line. It is a diagnosis chapter, not a specialty line: it counts pregnancy care billed by any physician office, so it is not an OB-GYN figure, and OB-GYN offices also earn receipts under other chapters.

How many physician offices of all specialties earn money from telemedicine?

86,466 U.S. employer offices of physicians of all specialties (NAICS 621111) reported some revenue from telemedicine services in 2022, per the 2022 Economic Census (Census): 42.9% of such offices (our calculation). The table counts offices with any telemedicine revenue. It does not say how much of their revenue came from it, and it does not break out OB-GYN practices.

How much do physician offices of all specialties spend on advertising?

U.S. offices of physicians of all specialties (NAICS 6211) spent $1,815,721 thousand, about $1.8 billion, on advertising and promotion in 2024, per the Census Bureau’s Annual Integrated Economic Survey (Census). That was 0.28% of their total 2024 operating expenses (our calculation). It is a sample estimate. Census does not publish advertising spending for OB-GYN practices or for NAICS 621111 on its own.

How many babies are born in the U.S. each year?

NCHS counted 3,612,012 registered U.S. births in 2025, slightly fewer than the 3,628,934 it counted in 2024 (NCHS Data Brief 571, archived). These are final 2025 figures from birth certificates, a count of every registered birth rather than a sample. The general fertility rate was 53.2 births per 1,000 females ages 15–44 in 2025, down from 2024 (NCHS, archived). NCHS notes that its 2025 rates use new Census population estimates, so part of the change in rates comes from the population figures.

How many U.S. births does Medicaid pay for?

Medicaid was the source of payment for 40.2% of U.S. births in 2024, and private insurance for 51.8%, according to NCHS’s final 2024 birth data (NCHS, NVSR 75-2, archived). The share paid by Medicaid differs by the mother’s race and Hispanic origin as NCHS reports it: Medicaid paid for 62.4% of births to Black non-Hispanic mothers and 26.6% of births to White non-Hispanic mothers in 2024, both lower than in 2023 (NCHS, archived).

NCHS’s provisional quarterly estimate for the second quarter of 2026 puts Medicaid at 38.3 per 100 births, all races and origins (NCHS VSRR, data.cdc.gov). Provisional estimates can change when final data arrive. CMS’s Medicaid prenatal and postpartum care measures are in the Medicaid section.

How common are cesareans, inductions and preterm births?

The U.S. cesarean delivery rate was 32.4% of births in 2025, unchanged from 2024 (NCHS Data Brief 571, archived). NCHS’s provisional estimate for the second quarter of 2026 is 32.5 per 100 births (NCHS VSRR, data.cdc.gov). Among first-time, full-term, single, head-first births, which NCHS calls low-risk, the cesarean rate was 26.6% in 2024 (NCHS, NVSR 75-2, archived).

By race and Hispanic origin, NCHS reports the highest 2024 cesarean rate for Black non-Hispanic mothers, at 37.5%, against 31.0% for White non-Hispanic mothers (NCHS, archived). NCHS does not give a cause for the gap in this report.

Labor was induced in 34.5% of U.S. singleton births in 2024, up from 2016 (NCHS Data Brief 554, archived). In 2024, 75.4% of mothers with a singleton vaginal birth used epidural or spinal anesthesia, up from 2016 (NCHS Data Brief 553, archived). Both come from birth certificates; national data on epidurals begin in 2016.

The U.S. preterm birth rate, births before 37 completed weeks, was 10.41% in 2024, unchanged from 2023 (NCHS, NVSR 75-2, archived). For Black non-Hispanic mothers it rose to 14.86% in 2024, the only race and Hispanic-origin group with a significant change that year (NCHS, archived).

When do mothers start prenatal care?

In 2025, 76.3% of U.S. mothers began prenatal care in the first trimester, up from 75.5% in 2024 (NCHS Data Brief 571, archived). The 2025 rise followed a decline from 78.3% in 2021 (NCHS Data Brief 550, archived). In 2024, late prenatal care (beginning in the third trimester) or none at all reached 7.3% of births, the highest since comparable national data began in 2016 (NCHS, NVSR 75-2, archived), and it rose in 36 states and the District of Columbia from 2021 to 2024 (NCHS Data Brief 550, archived).

Timing differs by the mother’s race and Hispanic origin as NCHS reports it. In 2024, first-trimester care ranged from 47.6% of births to Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander non-Hispanic mothers to 82.1% of births to White non-Hispanic mothers (NCHS, archived). All of these shares exclude births whose prenatal care timing was not recorded.

How many U.S. women die of maternal causes?

NCHS counted 669 maternal deaths in the United States in 2023, a rate of 18.6 deaths per 100,000 live births, down from 22.3 in 2022 (NCHS Health E-Stat 100, archived). This is the latest final national rate we found. A maternal death, in NCHS’s count, is a death during pregnancy or within 42 days of its end from a cause related to or made worse by the pregnancy, coded from death certificates; it does not include every death of a pregnant or recently pregnant woman. NCHS notes that the rates move from year to year because the events are few, and possibly because of errors in how maternal deaths are reported on death certificates.

NCHS publishes the rates by race and Hispanic origin. In 2023 the rate for Black non-Hispanic women was 50.3 deaths per 100,000 live births, which NCHS reports as significantly higher than the rates for White non-Hispanic women (14.5), Hispanic women (12.4) and Asian non-Hispanic women (10.7) (NCHS, archived). The rate rises with age: 59.8 per 100,000 live births for women 40 and older in 2023 (NCHS, archived). NCHS does not attribute these gaps to a cause in this report. How the popular “three to four times” comparison lines up with these rates is traced in the origins section.

Provisional data run further. NCHS’s provisional rate was 17.9 for the 12 months ending December 2024, 15.4 for the 12 months ending December 2025 and 15.3 for the 12 months ending March 2026, all per 100,000 live births (NCHS VSRR, data.cdc.gov). For the 12 months ending December 2025 the provisional rate was 42.1 for Black non-Hispanic women and 11.7 for White non-Hispanic women (NCHS VSRR, data.cdc.gov). NCHS says provisional rates are early estimates that may not include all deaths and births, so they can be revised. We found no final 2024 Health E-Stat.

Why do older maternal mortality rates not line up with today’s?

The way deaths are counted changed. A pregnancy status checkbox was added to the death certificate in its 2003 revision, and states adopted it one by one (NCHS, NVSR 69-2, archived). While the change was under way, NCHS stopped publishing an official national rate: the last one before the pause was for 2007 (NCHS, archived). An evaluation found the checkbox led to overreporting of maternal deaths among older women, so NCHS’s 2018 method restricts the checkbox to decedents aged 10–44, a narrower range than before, and when the checkbox is the only sign of pregnancy on the certificate it assigns a maternal code to the underlying cause only (NCHS, archived). The first official rate under that method was 17.4 deaths per 100,000 live births for 2018 (NCHS, archived). The same NCHS report also gives rates calculated without the checkbox, so that years can be compared on one method.

How many pregnancies end in a fetal death after 20 weeks?

NCHS recorded 19,837 fetal deaths at 20 weeks of gestation or more in the United States in 2024, often called stillbirths (NCHS, NVSR 75-6, archived). The fetal mortality rate was 5.44 per 1,000 live births and fetal deaths, not significantly different from 2023 (NCHS, archived). These counts do not include pregnancy losses before 20 weeks. As NCHS reports it, the 2024 rate was 10.00 for Black non-Hispanic women and 4.55 for White non-Hispanic women (NCHS, archived); the report does not give a cause for the difference.

How many women use contraception or report menopausal symptoms?

In 2022–2023, 54.3% of U.S. females ages 15–49 were using a contraceptive method in the month they were interviewed, according to NCHS’s National Survey of Family Growth, a household survey (NCHS Data Brief 539, archived). The most common methods were female sterilization (11.5%), the pill (11.4%) and long-acting reversible contraceptives, meaning implants and IUDs (10.5%) (NCHS, archived). Women not using a method may be trying to become pregnant, may be pregnant or postpartum, or may not be sexually active, as NCHS notes.

In NCHS’s 2025 National Health Interview Survey, 49.4% of U.S. women ages 40–60 who were not pregnant, postpartum or in surgical menopause said they had menopausal symptoms in the past 12 months (NCHS Data Brief 575, archived). Among those with symptoms, about 15.6% were taking a prescription medication for them (NCHS, archived). Both figures are self-reported.

How many babies are born in Florida and in Palm Beach, Broward and Martin counties?

NCHS counted 224,389 births to Florida residents in 2024 (NCHS, NVSR 75-2, archived). The Florida Department of Health’s own count for the same year is 224,423 resident live births (Florida Department of Health, FLHealthCHARTS); the two agencies’ counts differ slightly. By the mother’s county of residence, Florida counted 14,927 births in Palm Beach County, 20,121 in Broward County and 1,359 in Martin County in 2024 (Florida Department of Health). Together that is 36,407 births, or 16.2% of Florida’s resident births (our calculation).

The Florida Department of Health measures first-trimester care as a share of births with a known prenatal care status; NCHS’s national figure is a share of births with a known date of the first visit. We print them separately rather than compare them. FLHealthCHARTS flags some county rates as unstable when they rest on small numbers.

What do women’s health drug and device makers report selling?

Organon reported $1,752 million in 2025 women’s health sales worldwide, the largest women’s health line in the table below (Organon fiscal 2025 10-K). Hologic reported $668.8 million in fiscal 2025 GYN Surgical product revenues, and CooperSurgical, the women’s health and fertility segment of The Cooper Companies, reported $824.0 million in fiscal 2025 office and surgical net sales. Every figure is the company’s own reported sales for the line named, from its annual report on EDGAR, and each company sells into the market it describes. The lines are not built the same way: Organon’s total includes fertility brands, Hologic’s and Cooper’s fiscal years end in September and October, and Bayer’s figures are in euros from fiscal 2006, its last annual report on EDGAR.

Organon’s women’s health sales were $1,702 million in 2023, and its Nexplanon sales were $830 million that year (Organon fiscal 2025 10-K). Organon says women’s health was about 28% of its total revenues in 2025, and that $861 million of it came from outside the United States (Organon fiscal 2025 10-K). Fertility brands sit inside that total and are covered on our fertility clinic statistics page.

Hologic’s GYN Surgical products were 16.3% of its total revenue in fiscal 2025 (Hologic fiscal 2025 10-K). The line includes the MyoSure tissue removal system and the NovaSure endometrial ablation system (Hologic fiscal 2025 10-K). Cooper attributes growth in its office and surgical line mainly to increased sales of Paragard contraceptive intrauterine devices and an acquisition (Cooper fiscal 2025 10-K).

Organon describes the Jada System as intended to control and treat abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding or hemorrhage when conservative management is warranted, and says it sold the product to Laborie Medical Technologies Corporation in January 2026 (Organon fiscal 2025 10-K). Myovant’s report says the FDA approved Myfembree in May 2021 for heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids (Myovant 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2022). That report also says those fibroids result in approximately 250,000 hysterectomies a year in the U.S.; this is the seller’s statement, printed as the company wrote it (Myovant 10-K).

What do these companies say about OB-GYNs?

Hologic’s fiscal 2025 report lists ob-gyns first among the specialists its U.S. sales teams target, ahead of radiologists and breast surgeons (Hologic fiscal 2025 10-K). Cooper’s fiscal 2025 report says its office and surgical products support procedures commonly performed primarily by obstetricians and gynecologists (Cooper fiscal 2025 10-K), and it lists an increase in office-based and outpatient procedures among the trends in the OB/GYN market (Cooper fiscal 2025 10-K).

Organon’s fiscal 2025 report names obstetricians, gynecologists, reproductive endocrinologists and treatment centers as influential customers whose recommendations can affect the use of its products (Organon fiscal 2025 10-K). It also counts OB/GYNs among the staff of its research teams (Organon fiscal 2025 10-K), and says its professional representatives speak to healthcare professionals in private practice, group practices, hospitals and managed care organizations (Organon fiscal 2025 10-K).

Myovant’s report for the year ended March 31, 2022 uses the words “obstetrician” and “gynecologist” only in the name of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, by our search of that document, and it does not name them as customers. These are statements by sellers about their own market. They do not count how many OB-GYNs use a product.

What do these companies disclose about advertising and direct-to-consumer marketing?

Hologic charged about $24.7 million of advertising costs in fiscal 2025, including trade shows and conventions, across the whole company (Hologic fiscal 2025 10-K). The figure was $22.6 million in fiscal 2024 and $31.4 million in fiscal 2023, and the company says it has no direct-response advertising (Hologic fiscal 2025 10-K). The report does not split advertising by segment.

Cooper’s fiscal 2025 report describes consumer marketing in women’s health more directly than the others here. It says CooperSurgical has expanded awareness campaigns to include direct-to-consumer print, internet and social media, and radio since adding donor gametes, Paragard and cord blood storage (Cooper fiscal 2025 10-K). It says certain legal risks may be heightened by direct-to-consumer marketing of stem cell storage and Paragard IUDs (Cooper fiscal 2025 10-K). It also lists professional educational programs, internet promotions and advertising in professional journals among CooperSurgical’s sales activities (Cooper fiscal 2025 10-K). It gives no dollar figure for this advertising and does not mention video.

Organon’s fiscal 2025 report says HHS and the FDA announced measures in September 2025 to address direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements (Organon fiscal 2025 10-K), and lists expanded oversight of prescription drug advertising on social media among them (Organon fiscal 2025 10-K). It says promotional materials spread through evolving digital channels draw more visibility and scrutiny (Organon fiscal 2025 10-K). FDA and FTC rules are covered elsewhere on this page.

Myovant’s report says its promotional and advertising costs consist primarily of designing, producing, and distributing promotional materials, and it gives no figure for them (Myovant 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2022). Its report also says many providers expanded telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic and that field teams’ access to providers was restricted or converted to virtual access in many U.S. regions (Myovant 10-K). Bayer’s last annual report on EDGAR gives advertising and promotion costs of €1,484 million in 2006 for the whole group, with no women’s health split (Bayer fiscal 2006 20-F).

What do Hims & Hers and LifeMD report about women’s health and video?

Neither company reports women’s health revenue. Hims & Hers reported total revenue of $2,347.6 million in 2025 across all its brands (Hims & Hers fiscal 2025 10-K), and its report says it launched access to certain menopause and perimenopause support offerings that year (Hims & Hers fiscal 2025 10-K). LifeMD reported telehealth revenue of about $194.1 million in 2025, up from about $154.8 million in 2024, across all its programs (LifeMD fiscal 2025 10-K), and approximately 328,000 active patient subscribers as of December 31, 2025 (LifeMD fiscal 2025 10-K). Both sell direct to consumers, so these are sellers’ own figures.

Hims & Hers reported marketing expenses of $919.3 million in 2025 and $678.8 million in 2024 (Hims & Hers fiscal 2025 10-K). Customer acquisition costs were $798.5 million of the 2025 total (Hims & Hers fiscal 2025 10-K). The company says those costs exclude content production costs, so the cost of making its advertising is outside that figure, and the report does not give the amount for video or any other format (Hims & Hers fiscal 2025 10-K). LifeMD reported selling and marketing expenses of $86,074,473 in 2025 and $70,102,961 in 2024 (LifeMD fiscal 2025 10-K), which it says mainly consist of online marketing and advertising expenses (LifeMD fiscal 2025 10-K).

Hims & Hers says its brands maintain Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and TikTok accounts (Hims & Hers fiscal 2025 10-K) and that it keeps relationships with many social media influencers (Hims & Hers fiscal 2025 10-K). It says the FDA has issued multiple untitled letters about promotion by influencers or using social media (Hims & Hers fiscal 2025 10-K). The company aired a Super Bowl marketing campaign in the first quarter of 2025 (Hims & Hers fiscal 2025 10-K), and its mobile apps offer educational programs and wellness content (Hims & Hers fiscal 2025 10-K). Telehealth consultations on its platform are conducted by video, phone or store-and-forward technology, and the report gives no share for each (Hims & Hers fiscal 2025 10-K).

LifeMD’s report describes a women’s health platform focused on perimenopause and menopause, bone health and hormone optimization (LifeMD fiscal 2025 10-K). It closed its purchase of intangible assets of OHHMD, a virtual provider focused on women’s health and hormone replacement therapies, on April 24, 2025 (LifeMD fiscal 2025 10-K), which it calls its official entry into the women’s health market (LifeMD fiscal 2025 10-K). It signed a partnership in September 2023 with ASCEND Therapeutics, a women’s health drug company, to provide telehealth services that improve access to EstroGel (LifeMD fiscal 2025 10-K). None of this says how many women used the services.

Why are Bayer and Sumitomo Pharma barely on EDGAR?

Bayer ended its SEC reporting in 2007. Its Form 15F says it announced its intent to end its duty to file reports on September 5, 2007 (Bayer Form 15F), so its last annual report on EDGAR covers fiscal 2006. The Bayer figures in the table above are therefore two decades old and describe the business just after it bought Schering AG; none of them reflect today’s Mirena or contraceptive sales.

Sumitomo Pharma does not file annual reports with the SEC, and an EDGAR full-text search for its name in Forms 10-K and 20-F returned no filing by it (searched 2026-11-09). Its women’s health business reached EDGAR through Myovant Sciences, whose report for the year ended March 31, 2022 says its majority shareholder is Sumitovant Biopharma, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sumitomo Pharma (Myovant 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2022). Myovant stopped filing with the SEC in 2023, so that report is its last.

Which women’s health sellers mention video in their marketing?

Some smaller women’s health sellers name video in their marketing or training. Femasys, which sells birth control and infertility devices, lists online videos among its direct-to-patient marketing initiatives in its fiscal 2025 report (Femasys fiscal 2025 10-K). Agile Therapeutics, which sold a contraceptive patch, said in its fiscal 2023 report that it believed a consumer promotion plan using digital media, social media advertising, video and other mass-market advertising would generate awareness and demand (Agile fiscal 2023 10-K). The passage is a statement of intent, and the report does not say how much was spent on video. biote, which sells hormone therapy products and practice services to clinicians, lists educational videos among its training materials (biote fiscal 2025 10-K), and names practitioners in OB/GYN in its target set (biote fiscal 2025 10-K).

Across the seven named companies’ newest annual reports (Hologic, Organon, Cooper, Myovant, Bayer, Hims & Hers and LifeMD), 1 uses the word “video” or “videos,” Hims & Hers, and that use describes telehealth consultations; none uses it for marketing (our calculation). 4 of the seven use an obstetrician, gynecologist or OB-GYN word at all: Hologic, Organon, Cooper and Myovant, and Myovant’s use is only in the name of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (our calculation). These counts measure words in annual reports, so a missing word does not mean a company makes no videos.

How often do annual reports name OB-GYNs, and what does “video” mean there?

37 Form 10-K annual reports filed in 2025 contained an OB-GYN word, by our count with SEC EDGAR full-text search (our calculation; one count per filing), and they came from 37 filers. The words counted are obstetrician, gynecologist, OB-GYN and their plural and spelling variants. From 2001 to 2025, 1,284 such filings came from 299 distinct registrants. The count was 48 in 2001, reached a high of 73 in 2011, and another 34 were filed in 2026 through November 9 (our calculation). 32 of the 37 from 2025 came from drug, device, lab or health-services filers with a match outside the exhibits (our calculation). The yearly counts, filer names and query URLs are in our EDGAR counts file.

Full-text search has limits. It covers filings from 2001 on and counts Form 10-Ks only, so Form 20-F filers are outside it, as are private practices and hospitals, which file nothing. It leaves out 10-K/A amendments and the older 10-K405 form, and it does no stemming, so “obstetrics,” “gynecology” and “gynecologic” are separate terms that we did not count. We searched each form of the word and merged the results; the search treats OB-GYN, OB/GYN and OB GYN alike. Filing year 2025 mostly means fiscal 2024 reports. The count measures a word, not a business.

9 of the 37 filings from 2025 also contained “video” or “videos,” and 185 of the 1,284 did from 2001 to 2025, or 14.4% (our calculation). Counting the singular word alone gives 7 in 2025 and 152 over the whole period (our calculation). We read the passages around the word, up to ten per filing, in all 191 filings from 2001 through November 9, 2026 that contain an OB-GYN word and a video word, and assigned each filing one category for what “video” mostly refers to there (our calculation; see the contexts file).

The marketing group is broad and is not all OB-GYN marketing. It includes contraceptive and women’s health sellers, a fertility center network, skin care products sold through physician offices, a physician directory and consumer media companies such as The Knot, whose video is editorial content. Some filers in the set name OB-GYNs only in passing, for example as one of several specialties in a physician network.

Exact phrases are rarer. 14 filings in the set contain “educational video,” 11 contain “training video,” and 2 contain “marketing video,” both biote reports describing a lawsuit by a performer who appeared in one of its marketing videos (our calculation). 0 contain “promotional video,” “instructional video” or “video visit” (our calculation).

Social platforms barely appear. 10 filings from 2001 through November 9, 2026 pair an OB-GYN word with “YouTube”, either consumer media companies distributing video content or companies naming it as a marketing channel. 1 pairs an OB-GYN word with “webinar,” in a director’s biography, and 0 with “TikTok” (our calculation). Telehealth is more common: 10 of the 37 filings from 2025 also contained “telehealth,” and 74 did from 2001 to 2025, the first of them in filing year 2010 (our calculation). Public filings reach only the sellers and platforms that report to the SEC, so they say little about how many OB-GYN practices make videos.

Which rules apply to an OB-GYN practice that publishes video?

As of November 9, 2026, a Florida OB-GYN practice that publishes video answers to the Board of Medicine’s advertising rule, HIPAA and the FTC’s endorsement and review rules. FDA’s rules cover advertisements for prescription drugs and the labeling of medical devices, and YouTube applies its own policies to what is uploaded. This section reports what each rule says on the date it was read. It is not legal or medical advice, and it draws no conclusion about any one practice or video.

What does Florida’s physician advertising rule say about video?

Florida Board of Medicine Rule 64B8-11.001, in the version effective 3/19/2026 (Florida Administrative Rules), requires a physician who advertises on electronic media to keep an exact copy of the audio or video for at least six months from the date it airs (Florida rule 64B8-11.001). The rule defines advertising as any statements, “oral or written”, disseminated to the public with the intent of furthering the selling of professional services (Florida rule 64B8-11.001).

The rule deems an advertisement false, deceptive or misleading if, among other grounds, it:

• creates false or “unjustified expectations of beneficial assistance” (Florida rule 64B8-11.001);
• conveys the impression that the physician has qualifications, skills or other attributes “superior to other physicians”, other than a simple listing of earned achievements the Board recognizes (Florida rule 64B8-11.001);
• fails to “conspicuously identify the physician by name” in the advertisement (Florida rule 64B8-11.001).

The 2026 Florida Statutes list “False, deceptive, or misleading advertising” as a ground for disciplining a medical doctor (Florida Statutes 458.331) and let the Board of Medicine impose a fine of up to $10,000 for each count or separate offense (Florida Statutes 456.072).

What does Florida’s telehealth law say about care by video?

Section 456.47 of the 2026 Florida Statutes, read on November 9, 2026, defines telehealth as the use of “synchronous or asynchronous telecommunications technology” by a telehealth provider to provide health care services, and says the term does not include e-mail messages or facsimile transmissions (Florida Statutes 456.47). A telehealth provider must practice within his or her scope and the “prevailing professional standard of practice” for clinicians who see patients in person in Florida (Florida Statutes 456.47).

Records generated by telehealth services, “including video, audio, electronic, or other records”, are confidential under the same section (Florida Statutes 456.47). A clinician not licensed in Florida may treat a patient located in Florida by telehealth if he or she “registers with the applicable board”, or with the department where there is no board (Florida Statutes 456.47). The section also says a telehealth provider “may not use telehealth to perform an abortion”, including medical abortions as defined in section 390.011 (Florida Statutes 456.47).

What does Florida’s abortion statute say, and when did the 2023 act take effect?

As read on November 9, 2026, section 390.0111 of the Florida Statutes says a physician may not knowingly perform or induce a termination of pregnancy if the physician determines the gestational age of the fetus is more than 6 weeks, unless one of the conditions in paragraphs (a) to (d) of that subsection is met (Florida Statutes 390.0111). This page reports the text of the statute and its dates, and takes no position on it.

The statute says medications intended for use in a medical abortion must be “dispensed in person by a physician” and may not be dispensed by mail or courier (Florida Statutes 390.0111). Except in a medical emergency, it says consent is voluntary and informed only if the physician has given the listed information orally, while physically present in the same room, and “at least 24 hours before the procedure”, with shorter timing in the documented circumstances the statute lists (Florida Statutes 390.0111).

What does HIPAA say about patient photos and video?

As read on November 9, 2026, HIPAA says a covered entity, such as an OB-GYN practice, “must obtain an authorization” for any use or disclosure of protected health information for marketing, except face-to-face communications and promotional gifts of nominal value (45 CFR 164.508). The rule defines marketing as a communication about a product or service that “encourages recipients of the communication to purchase or use the product or service”, with the exceptions it lists (45 CFR 164.501).

The safe harbor method for de-identifying information names “Full face photographic images and any comparable images” (45 CFR 164.514) and biometric identifiers, “including finger and voice prints” (45 CFR 164.514), among the identifiers to be removed. In the HHS civil penalty table, the tier for an entity that did not know of a violation and could not have known runs up to $73,011 per violation (45 CFR 102.3).

What do the FTC’s endorsement and review rules say about video testimonials?

The FTC’s Endorsement Guides, published July 26, 2023, say that when an endorsement is made through both visuals and sound, as in a video, the disclosure should be made in the “visual and audible portions” (16 CFR 255.0). A connection between an endorser and a seller that might materially affect the weight of the endorsement, and that the audience would not reasonably expect, “must be disclosed clearly and conspicuously” (16 CFR 255.5). In the Guides’ example of a doctor who makes a safety and efficacy claim for a drug on inadequate evidence, “both the advertiser and the doctor would be liable” (16 CFR 255.3).

The FTC’s rule on consumer reviews and testimonials took effect on October 21, 2024 (Federal Register). It says a business may not “write, create, or sell” a consumer review or testimonial that materially misrepresents that the reviewer exists, that the reviewer used the product or service, or the reviewer’s experience with it (16 CFR 465.2). A business also may not disseminate a testimonial by one of its “officers, managers, employees, or agents” without a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the relationship, when that relationship is not otherwise clear to the audience and the business knew or should have known of it (16 CFR 465.5). The FTC’s maximum civil penalty for a knowing violation of a trade regulation rule rose to $53,088 per violation in its January 17, 2025 adjustment (Federal Register).

What do FDA’s rules say about drug advertising and device labeling?

As read on November 9, 2026, FDA’s rule requires a prescription drug ad broadcast on media such as radio or television to include the major side effects and contraindications in the “audio or audio and visual parts” of the presentation (21 CFR 202.1). In television and radio ads presented directly to consumers, that statement must be made in a “clear, conspicuous, and neutral manner” (21 CFR 202.1), under a final rule with a compliance date of November 20, 2024 (Federal Register). An ad does not meet the rule if it fails to present a “fair balance” between information on side effects and contraindications and information on effectiveness (21 CFR 202.1). The maximum penalty in the HHS table for a false or misleading direct-to-consumer drug ad is $377,701 for a first violation in any 3-year period (45 CFR 102.3). Whether a particular practice video counts as drug advertising is a legal question this page does not answer.

A broadcast ad must carry a brief summary of side effects and contraindications unless “adequate provision” is made for dissemination of the approved or permitted labeling (21 CFR 202.1). The federal Unified Agenda published on August 14, 2026 lists an FDA rule that would remove that option, with its notice of proposed rulemaking timed for 12/00/26, a month-and-year entry (Federal Register). A Federal Register search on November 9, 2026 found no proposed rule on it yet.

FDA said on September 9, 2025 that it was sending thousands of letters to pharmaceutical companies and issuing approximately 100 cease-and-desist letters to companies with deceptive ads (FDA). The same announcement says the number of warning letters it sent to pharmaceutical companies dropped to one in 2023 and zero in 2024 (FDA).

For medical devices, 21 CFR Part 801 says a “false or misleading representation” in labeling about another device, drug, food or cosmetic is among the representations that render a device misbranded (21 CFR 801.6). It says the intended use of a device may be shown by labeling claims, “advertising matter”, or oral or written statements by those responsible for its labeling (21 CFR 801.4). Its user labeling rule for menstrual tampons says “toxic shock syndrome (TSS)”, which the rule describes as a rare but serious and sometimes fatal disease, is associated with their use (21 CFR 801.430).

What has FDA done on menopause treatments since 2025?

On November 10, 2025, HHS and FDA announced that FDA was initiating the removal of broad boxed warnings from hormone replacement therapy products for menopause, and that it was working with companies to remove references to risks of “cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, and probable dementia” from product labeling (FDA). FDA said it was not seeking to remove the boxed warning for endometrial cancer for systemic estrogen-alone products (FDA). Its request to application holders lists, for systemic products, retaining information about “cardiovascular diseases and breast cancer warnings” in the labeling (FDA). These are the agency’s stated actions. This page does not assess the evidence behind them.

By FDA’s account, the class-wide labeling changes that led to the Boxed Warning began in 2003, after the Women’s Health Initiative findings (FDA). On February 12, 2026, FDA said it had approved labeling changes to six menopausal hormone therapy products, and called them a first batch (FDA). Later batches were not confirmed on an FDA page for this edition.

FDA’s Drug Trials Snapshot gives an approval date of October 24, 2025 for Lynkuet (elinzanetant), sold by Bayer, for moderate to severe hot flashes due to menopause (FDA).

What does YouTube’s medical misinformation policy say about abortion and contraception?

YouTube’s medical misinformation policy, as read on November 9, 2026, says it does not allow content that poses a “serious risk of egregious harm” by spreading medical misinformation that contradicts local health authority guidance about specific health conditions and substances (YouTube Help). Its treatment examples include content that contradicts local health authorities’ guidance on the “safety of chemical and surgical abortion” (YouTube Help) and promotion of “alternative abortion methods” in place of chemical or surgical methods deemed safe by health authorities (YouTube Help).

The words contraception, contraceptive and birth control do not appear on the page as read, and the page says of its examples, “This isn't a complete list” (YouTube Help). Among its vaccine examples, the page lists claims that an approved vaccine will cause death, infertility, miscarriage, autism or contraction of other infectious diseases (YouTube Help).

YouTube says it may make exceptions for content with “educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic context” (YouTube Help), and for content in which creators describe “firsthand experiences” from themselves or their family, while still removing content or channels with other violations or a pattern of promoting medical misinformation (YouTube Help).

What does YouTube require for its health source features?

YouTube’s application page, read on November 9, 2026, says a channel must have more than 1,500 valid public watch hours in the last 12 months, or 1.5 million valid public Shorts views in the past 90 days, to qualify for its health features (YouTube Help). It lists channels run by “pharmaceutical companies, health insurers, or medical device companies” among those not eligible for consideration (YouTube Help). YouTube says some videos on health topics carry an “information panel” underneath the video giving context on the source (YouTube Help).

What do the popular women’s health numbers really say?

The number quoted most about endometriosis, about 10% of reproductive age women worldwide, is WHO’s estimate as of October 2025, not a count (WHO). Seven figures that appear on practice websites, advocacy pages and marketing sites are traced below: 1 in 10 for endometriosis, 7 to 10 years to diagnosis, 10-15% for caesarean sections, three to four times for the gap in deaths between Black and White women, 1 in 4 for miscarriage, up to 75% for hot flashes and 80% for video conversions. We read each at its source, or at the earliest source we could reach. Pages that repeat a number are linked only as dated evidence of how it spread, never as a source for the number itself.

“1 in 10 women have endometriosis”

The figure has been repeated since at least 1983, and WHO’s current page prints no source for it. WHO’s first fact sheet, in March 2021, said roughly 10%, or 190 million women and girls, and cited a 2020 New England Journal of Medicine review that we could not read (WHO, archived). The earliest statement of about 10% we found is the opening line of a 1983 paper on colorectal endometriosis, which says the disease occurs in about 10% of all women, with no source in its abstract (Acta Chirurgica Scandinavica, PubMed record). In January 1988 a paper on U.S. Army records said only that the rate “is quoted as” 10% (Journal of Reproductive Medicine, PubMed record). In 1989 Wheeler called about 10% the “least-biased estimate,” based on women having surgery for other symptoms at a 21-physician collaborative (Journal of Reproductive Medicine, PubMed record). A 1997 review wrote that the general-population estimate of 10% rested on “a single cohort study,” which its abstract does not name (Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America, PubMed record). The wording later gained a headcount: endometriosis.org says 1 in 10 is approximately 176 million women worldwide (endometriosis.org). We read only the abstracts of the journal papers, and we searched PubMed titles and abstracts back to 1975 for older forms of the figure.

Later counts depend on what qualifies as a case. In the ENDO study (2007-2009), pelvic MRI identified endometriosis in 11% of a population cohort of 131 women drawn from the catchment areas of surgical centers in Salt Lake City and San Francisco (Fertility and Sterility, PubMed record). The U.S. Office on Women’s Health, citing that study, says at least 11% of women have endometriosis (Office on Women’s Health). NCHS counted 6.2% of U.S. women ages 20-49 as ever diagnosed in 2022-2023 (NCHS, archived), from 4,856 survey respondents (NCHS, archived). In an Australian cohort of 13,508 women born from 1973 to 1978, 6.0% had clinically confirmed endometriosis by age 40-44 (BJOG, PubMed record), rising to 11.4% with suspected cases added (BJOG, PubMed record). A 2020 review of 69 studies found general-population studies reporting 0.7% to 8.6% (Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, PubMed record). Use instead: “NCHS found 6.2% of U.S. women ages 20-49 had ever been diagnosed with endometriosis in 2022-2023. WHO estimates about 10% of reproductive age women worldwide.”

“It takes 7 to 10 years to diagnose endometriosis”

The range comes from surveys and clinic samples of women already diagnosed, and the numbers differ by country and by method. The earliest study we found that reports a delay in years in its abstract, published in 1996, surveyed 218 women with surgically confirmed disease, recruited through endometriosis self-help groups, by post (Human Reproduction, PubMed record). Mean delay from the onset of pain to surgical diagnosis was 11.73 years for women in the United States (Human Reproduction, PubMed record) and 7.96 years for women in the United Kingdom (Human Reproduction, PubMed record). The 2011 Global Study of Women’s Health, run by the World Endometriosis Research Foundation, found 6.7 years among 1,418 premenopausal women having laparoscopy at 16 centers in ten countries (Fertility and Sterility, PubMed record). A 2011 Endometriosis UK online survey of 2,890 self-selected respondents (Endometriosis UK) averaged over 7.5 years (Endometriosis UK). A 2012 online survey of 638 U.S. women aged 18-49, by authors then employed by AbbVie, which sells an endometriosis drug, found a mean of 4.4 years (Journal of Women’s Health, PubMed record).

A systematic review of 17 observational studies published since 2018 found reported delays anywhere between 0.3 and 12 years, depending on how the delay was defined, where it was measured and who was studied (BJOG, PubMed record). Practice pages keep the round range: a London gynaecology practice’s January 2025 page says 7 to 10 years with no source (Chelsea Well Women). Use instead: “Surveys of diagnosed women report averages from 4.4 years in a 2012 U.S. online survey to 7.5 years in a 2011 U.K. charity survey and 6.7 years across ten countries. A 2025 review found reported times between 0.3 and 12 years.”

“A cesarean rate above 10-15% is too high”

The phrase began with a 1985 WHO-sponsored panel, and WHO itself moved off it in 2015. At Fortaleza, Brazil, experts concluded that there was no justification for any region to have a caesarean section rate higher than 10-15%, as WHO’s own authors quoted in BJOG in 2016 (BJOG, PMC). The range was meant for populations, and the same authors say it has in many instances been mistakenly used as a measure for individual healthcare facilities (BJOG, PMC). The 1985 text appeared in The Lancet, which bars our agents, and PubMed’s summary of it leaves out the rate, so we quote WHO’s authors.

WHO’s 2015 statement says the international healthcare community has considered the ideal rate to be between 10% and 15% since 1985 (WHO). It adds that when the rate goes above 10% across a population there is no evidence that mortality improves (WHO), and its headline says effort should go to women in need “rather than striving to achieve a specific rate” (WHO). A 2015 review of eight country-level studies by WHO authors put the threshold between 9 and 16% (Reproductive Health, PubMed record). A 2015 JAMA analysis of 194 WHO member states, using 2012 data with many rates imputed, found cesarean rates up to 19.1 per 100 live births were linked to a lower maternal mortality ratio (JAMA, PubMed record). Worldwide, 21.1% of women gave birth by caesarean section in the latest data, from 2010-2018 (BMJ Global Health, PubMed record). The U.S. rate is in this page’s births section. Use instead: “In 1985 WHO-sponsored experts said no region was justified above 10-15%. In 2015 WHO said rates above 10% across a population are not linked to lower mortality, and that the aim is caesareans for women who need them rather than a specific rate.”

“Black women are three to four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes”

The multiple is CDC’s own, from surveillance of deaths per 100,000 live births, and it varies by measure and year. CDC’s February 2003 release said Black women have three to four times the risk of White women, from its 1991-1999 report (CDC archive), when the ratios were 30.0 (CDC archive) and 8.1 deaths per 100,000 live births (CDC archive). An MMWR report for 1987-1990 said the disparity reached 4.1 times by 1990 (MMWR, PubMed record), and the report for 1998-2005 said African American women continued to have a three- to four-fold higher risk (Obstetrics & Gynecology, PubMed record). For 2011-2015 CDC put the ratio for non-Hispanic Black women at 3.3 times that for non-Hispanic White women (MMWR, PubMed record).

Two measures sit behind the headlines. CDC’s Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System counts deaths during or within 1 year of the end of pregnancy from causes related to it (CDC, archived). NCHS reports deaths during pregnancy or within 42 days of its end (NCHS, archived). In NCHS’s 2023 rates, non-Hispanic Black women had 50.3 deaths per 100,000 live births (NCHS, archived) and non-Hispanic White women 14.5 (NCHS, archived), more than three times as high. In 2021 the same table showed 69.9 (NCHS, archived) and 26.6 (NCHS, archived), more than two and a half times as high. The ratio compares two groups only, and CDC’s surveillance page said that in 2020 and 2021 the highest ratio was among non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native women (CDC, archived). Use instead: “In 2023 NCHS reported 50.3 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births for non-Hispanic Black women and 14.5 for non-Hispanic White women. CDC’s surveillance, which counts deaths up to a year after pregnancy, put the ratio at 3.3 times for 2011-2015.”

“1 in 4 pregnancies ends in miscarriage”

We found no single study behind the phrase in PubMed and web searches, and published estimates vary with what counts as a pregnancy. A 2021 Lancet paper gave a pooled risk of 15.3% of recognised pregnancies (The Lancet, PubMed record). In a Norwegian register of 421,201 pregnancies in 2009-13, risk was lowest at ages 25-29, at 10% (BMJ, PubMed record), and reached 53% at age 45 and over (BMJ, PubMed record). In the U.S. National Survey of Family Growth, 19.7% of pregnancies conceived in 1990-2011 ended in loss, a broader category that also includes stillbirth and ectopic pregnancy, among 42,526 reported pregnancies excluding induced terminations (Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, PubMed record).

The highest figures count pregnancies a woman would not have known about. In a 1988 New England Journal of Medicine study of 221 women attempting to conceive, daily urine tests identified 198 pregnancies; 22 percent ended before they were detected clinically (New England Journal of Medicine, PubMed record) and 31 percent were lost after implantation in total (New England Journal of Medicine, PubMed record). As dated evidence of the phrase, a New Zealand miscarriage support group wrote in May 2015 that generally accepted figures are 15% to 25% and that “from our own experience we suggest 1 in 4” (Miscarriage Support). Use instead: “A pooled 2021 estimate was 15.3% of recognised pregnancies. The figure rises when very early losses are counted: 31 percent after implantation in a 1988 study that tested urine daily.”

“75% of women have hot flashes”

The figure is the top of a range, not a measured average. A 2023 JAMA review says approximately 50% to 75% of women have hot flashes, night sweats or both during the menopausal transition (JAMA, PubMed record). A 2026 meta-analysis of 41 population-based studies of women aged 40-65 found pooled prevalence of 74.23% in the Americas and Europe region (Climacteric, PubMed record) and 54.29% in Africa (Climacteric, PubMed record), and its authors warn that high variation between studies means differences should be read cautiously. A nationally representative 2005 online survey of 4,402 U.S. women aged 40-65 found vasomotor symptoms in 79% of perimenopausal women (Climacteric, PubMed record). A 1964-65 postal survey of 638 women aged 45 to 54 in the London area reported that hot flushes and night sweats occur in the majority of women (British Journal of Preventive and Social Medicine, PubMed record). PubMed searches found no study that produced a single 75% figure. A University of Rochester OB-GYN department blog in January 2015 says up to 75% of women experience hot flashes during the menopause transition, with no source (University of Rochester). Use instead: “A 2023 JAMA review says approximately 50% to 75% of women have hot flashes or night sweats during the menopausal transition. A 2026 pooled estimate was 74.23% in the Americas and Europe region and 54.29% in Africa, with high variation between studies.”

“Video lifts conversions 80%”

The figure is a best case from one video vendor, EyeView, about a client website, not women’s health. In February 2009 EyeView’s blog said viewers of its videos for one client, UMOO, were 80% more likely to become depositing users, comparing viewers with non-viewers (EyeView, archived). By August 2010 Unbounce, a landing-page software seller, wrote that a study by eyeviewdigital.com showed video on landing pages can increase conversion by 80% (Unbounce, archived).

The larger later evidence points the other way. Unbounce’s own 2021 analysis of about 35,000 customer landing pages in each of three time frames (Unbounce) concluded that video appears to have a minimal or negative impact on landing-page performance (Unbounce). Its April 2025 article of landing-page examples still says landing pages with video can increase conversions by 80% (Unbounce). A web search for the figure among OB-GYN practice pages found no test by an OB-GYN practice. Use instead: “Unbounce’s 2021 study of about 35,000 landing pages per time frame found video had a minimal or negative effect; we found no conversion test by an OB-GYN practice.”

Every popular claim our research pages trace, 875 in all, is on one page: popular video statistics, fact-checked.

How we built this page

We started from the questions people search for about ob-gyn video statistics and looked for the organization that actually produced each answer. Every figure on this page sits in an evidence ledger with its source, the exact table or paragraph it came from, the measurement period, the population measured, and the date we checked it. This edition holds 734 figures from 74 publishers.

On November 9, 2026, each sourced figure on this page was re-fetched with the fetch cache cleared and matched against the recorded wording: BLS occupation wage estimates and the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (through the BLS data API and data files) and Employment Projections and Occupational Outlook pages (through Internet Archive copies, because bls.gov refuses automated requests); Census County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, the 2022 Economic Census and the Annual Integrated Economic Survey (through the Census data API); Medicare Part B and Medicaid Core Set figures through data.cms.gov and data.medicaid.gov, within data.cms.gov’s stated crawl delay; NCHS reports through Internet Archive copies of cdc.gov (which refuses scripts; its robots file names no AI agent) and data.cdc.gov; Florida birth counts from FLHealthCHARTS and the Florida Department of Health’s physician workforce reports; the Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code, eCFR and the Federal Register; FDA and YouTube Help pages; SEC filings on EDGAR; and journal abstracts (PubMed and PMC records re-read through NCBI’s E-utilities, because the pages answer scripts with a bot check). Our YouTube figures come from the YouTube Data API, our Medicare totals from CMS’s public files, and our filing counts from EDGAR full-text search. We left out sources whose robots rules bar AI agents, among them the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ site (acog.org), the Commonwealth Fund, data.hrsa.gov, ahrq.gov, nejm.org, thelancet.com, jamanetwork.com and CDC WONDER, using journal papers only through their PubMed abstracts. We left out sources whose own terms bar automated collection or use with AI tools: NRMP’s Match reports, and the March of Dimes, ABMS, ACGME and AAMC sites, whose terms bar robots, spiders or scraping. We could not read bhw.hrsa.gov or hhs.gov (403), and Medicaid.gov’s postpartum coverage map refused our verifier, so state postpartum coverage comes from KFF’s tracker, labelled as secondary. Medical subject matter is reported as each source states it. Nothing here is medical advice.

We only cite the producer: government agencies, regulators, company filings and official posts, and the survey owner's own report. We do not cite statistics roundups, Statista-style aggregators, or salary sites without a public method. We did not bypass paywalls or sign-up forms; where a full report was gated, we used only the figures its publisher states publicly.

Figures marked "our calculation" are arithmetic on the cited numbers, and anyone can reproduce them:

This edition contains no Mark Studios customer data.

Limitations

• No single count of OB-GYNs exists. The board counts diplomates, BLS counts wage and salary jobs, HRSA’s model counts full-time equivalents and CMS counts providers who billed original Medicare. They differ by more than two to one, and we print them side by side rather than choose one.
• Medicare is a small slice of OB-GYN work. Original Medicare covers mostly women 65 and older and people with disabilities, so it pays for very few births. The Part B file has no Medicare Advantage, no Medicaid and no private insurance. Payment and code counts are for that population, and year-to-year comparisons are before inflation.
• BLS estimates for OB-GYNs in Florida are rough. The Florida employment estimate has a 36.1% relative standard error, BLS released no Florida wage figures for the occupation, and it publishes no OB-GYN series for the Miami or Port St. Lucie areas or for counties. NAICS 621111 covers all physician offices; every such figure is labelled as shared.
• Florida’s physician survey depends on who answers. Counts of OB-GYNs who deliver babies come from license-renewal surveys in two-year cycles that overlap, and the number answering fell between cycles. A drop in the count is not by itself evidence that OB-GYNs stopped delivering.
• Most video studies are one search on one day. YouTube, TikTok and Instagram content studies score top results for a short list of terms, often in one language, and their quality scales differ. Their shares are spreads across samples, not a rate for all women’s health video.
• Trials and telehealth studies are small or observational. Several video trials found no difference on their main outcome, and telehealth results depend on the measure and design. We report what each study measured and promise nothing about any treatment, program or practice.
• Our YouTube read follows YouTube’s ranking. The 500 videos are what YouTube’s search returned for three terms (the top 200 results of each, sorted by views, with no country filter) on November 9, 2026. It is not a census of OB-GYN video. View counts are lifetime snapshots, and we sorted 273 channels by hand from their public text; credentials were not checked. Patients, real births, newborns, private gynecology visits and sexualised material are published only as a class and counts, so 25.2% of on-topic views cannot be recomputed from the public CSV.
• Filings count words. EDGAR full-text search finds a word, not a topic. We read the passages around the word, up to ten per filing, in the 191 filings that also mention video; other filings are counts only.
• Rules are dated. Statutes and rules are reported as we read them on November 9, 2026. This is not legal advice. Every “earliest we found” in the origins section rests on web pages, PubMed and the Internet Archive; newspaper databases were not searched.

How to cite this page

For a single figure, cite the original publisher named next to it, and link here if the verification trail is useful to your readers. Each figure has its own anchor, so you can link straight to it, for example https://www.markstudios.com/research/obgyn-video-statistics#DRV-220. To cite the page as a whole:

Mark Studios. "OB-GYN Video Statistics." Last verified Nov 9, 2026. https://www.markstudios.com/research/obgyn-video-statistics

@misc{markstudios_obgyn_video_statistics_2026,
  author = {{Mark Studios}},
  title = {{OB-GYN Video Statistics}},
  year = {2026},
  month = nov,
  url = {https://www.markstudios.com/research/obgyn-video-statistics},
  note = {Last verified 2026-11-09}
}

Our calculations and the evidence table are free to reuse with attribution and a link to this page. Each underlying figure remains the claim of its original publisher, and some publishers ask for a link when their figures are reused.

Sources

Download the evidence table (CSV)

1. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (de Moel-Mandel et al.), "Do You Know What Birth Control Actually Does to Your Body?": Assessing Contraceptive Information on TikTok. (2025-06-30). Accessed 2026-11-09.
2. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology (Sütcüoğlu et al.), Social Media Videos on Contraceptive Implants: An Assessment of Video Quality and Reliability. (2023-08-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
3. Menopause (Hariharan et al.), Representaton of sexual dysfunction among top menopause content creators on TikTok: a cross-sectional content analysis. (2026-09-29). Accessed 2026-11-09.
4. Facts, Views & Vision in ObGyn (Prakash et al.), Perceptions of endometriosis surgery on TikTok: quality and implications for patient counselling. (2025-12-19). Accessed 2026-11-09.
5. Gynecologic Oncology Reports (Amezcua et al.), Themes, perspectives, and educational quality of content related to #PapSmears on TikTok. (2025-09-28). Accessed 2026-11-09.
6. Healthcare (Basel) (Ahner et al.), Viral but Not Verified: Analyzing Accuracy and Engagement in TikTok Discussions of IUDs. (2026-05-28). Accessed 2026-11-09.
7. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology (Naroji et al.), Understanding PCOS-Related Content across Social Media Platforms-A Cross-Sectional Analysis. (2023-11-20). Accessed 2026-11-09.
8. BJOG (Eubanks et al.), Social Media and Supplements for Menopausal Symptoms: A Content Analysis. (2026-04-12). Accessed 2026-11-09.
9. Obstetrics & Gynecology (Wu et al.), TikTok, #IUD, and User Experience With Intrauterine Devices Reported on Social Media. (2022-12-05). Accessed 2026-11-09.
10. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada (McGough et al.), Content, Quality, and Reliability of Endometriosis Videos on YouTube. (2025-03-14). Accessed 2026-11-09.
11. AJOG Global Reports (Shackleford et al.), An analysis of oral contraceptive related videos on TikTok. (2024-06-12). Accessed 2026-11-09.
12. Contraception and Reproductive Medicine (Coleman et al.), Social media as health educator: An assessment of the understandability and accuracy of tiktok content about contraception. (2024-11-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
13. OTO Open (Lin et al.), Evaluating HPV Vaccination-Related Content on a Burgeoning Social Media Platform: Insufficient Quality of TikTok. (2024-12-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
14. Health Promotion Practice (Boatman et al.), Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Messaging on TikTok: Social Media Content Analysis. (2021-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
15. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association (Dirican et al.), English-language videos on YouTube as a source of information Human Papilloma Virus vaccination. (2023-Jun). Accessed 2026-11-09.
16. Journal of Medical Internet Research (Lee et al.), Content Analysis and Quality Evaluation of Cesarean Delivery-Related Videos on YouTube: Cross-sectional Study. (2021-07-30). Accessed 2026-11-09.
17. JMIR Infodemiology (Squires et al.), Content Quality of YouTube Videos About Pain Management After Cesarean Birth: Content Analysis. (2023-06-23). Accessed 2026-11-09.
18. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics (Riemma et al.), Assessing quality, reliability and accuracy of polycystic ovary syndrome-related content on TikTok: A video-based cross-sectional analysis. (2025-02-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
19. Healthcare (Basel) (Horvath et al.), The Discourse Surrounding Polycystic Ovary Syndrome on TikTok: A Social Media Analysis. (2024-11-12). Accessed 2026-11-09.
20. Endocrine Connections (Ali Baig et al.), Assessment of the quality, content, and reliability of YouTube® videos on diabetes mellitus and polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review with cross-sectional analysis comparing peer-reviewed videos. (2024-06-28). Accessed 2026-11-09.
21. JMIR Diabetes (Birch et al.), Content Quality of YouTube Videos About Gestational Diabetes: Systematic Evaluation. (2022-04-07). Accessed 2026-11-09.
22. American Journal of Perinatology (Perone et al.), Evaluating TikTok Content on Gestational Diabetes Screening: Accuracy and Impact. (2026-04-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
23. Heliyon (McNamee et al.), Assessing the accuracy and quality of YouTube videos on early pregnancy loss. (2022-12-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
24. Journal of Korean Medical Science (Lee et al.), YouTube as a Source of Information and Education on Hysterectomy. (2020-06-29). Accessed 2026-11-09.
25. Urogynecology (Shah et al.), Quality of Pelvic Floor Therapy Videos on YouTube: Does Popularity Predict Reliability? (2024-01-23). Accessed 2026-11-09.
26. Patient Education and Counseling (Schnitman et al.), The role of digital patient education in maternal health: A systematic review. (2021-06-24). Accessed 2026-11-09.
27. BMC Public Health (Bai et al.), Online-based antenatal education and its effects on maternal mental health and selected neonatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2026-05-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
28. JAMA Pediatrics (Flynn et al.), Smartphone-Based Video Antenatal Preterm Birth Education: The Preemie Prep for Parents Randomized Clinical Trial. (2023-07-31). Accessed 2026-11-09.
29. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM (Rahman et al.), An educational video's impact on the induction of labor experience: a randomized controlled trial. (2021-09-24). Accessed 2026-11-09.
30. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Rimsza et al.), Video Instruction for Pushing in the Second Stage: a randomized controlled trial. (2023-03-20). Accessed 2026-11-09.
31. American Journal of Perinatology (Stortz et al.), A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effect of Standardized Video Education on Prenatal Genetic Testing Choices: Uptake of Genetic Testing. (2021-04-20). Accessed 2026-11-09.
32. Breastfeeding Medicine (Kellams et al.), A Randomized Trial of Prenatal Video Education to Improve Breastfeeding Among Low-Income Women. (2018-10-23). Accessed 2026-11-09.
33. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Pallett et al.), A randomized controlled trial to determine whether a video presentation improves informed consent for hysterectomy. (2018-06-28). Accessed 2026-11-09.
34. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Greene et al.), Evaluation of patient preparedness for surgery: a randomized controlled trial. (2017-04-18). Accessed 2026-11-09.
35. Obstetrics & Gynecology (Hilal et al.), Video Colposcopy for Reducing Patient Anxiety During Colposcopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. (2017-Aug). Accessed 2026-11-09.
36. Preventive Medicine Reports (Wouters et al.), The effect of an animation video on consultation time, anxiety and satisfaction in women with abnormal cervical cytology: Animation video reduces colposcopy time. (2019-01-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
37. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology (Wong et al.), A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Use of a Multimedia Video to Improve Consent in Patients Undergoing Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy. (2025-05-31). Accessed 2026-11-09.
38. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research (Çallıoğlu et al.), The effect of informing the patient about the procedure with video imaging before office hysteroscopy on pain. (2023-07-18). Accessed 2026-11-09.
39. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM (Miremberg et al.), An informative video before planned cesarean delivery and maternal anxiety-a multicenter randomized controlled trial. (2022-02-28). Accessed 2026-11-09.
40. Obstetrics & Gynecology (Mokhtari et al.), Educational Video on Pain Management and Subsequent Opioid Use After Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. (2021-Aug). Accessed 2026-11-09.
41. Obstetrics & Gynecology (Qureshey et al.), Educational Multimedia Tool Compared With Routine Care for the Uptake of Postpartum Long-Acting Reversible Contraception in Individuals With High-Risk Pregnancies: A Randomized Controlled Trial. (2022-03-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
42. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics (Boontor et al.), The effect of an educational video on the immediate insertion of postpartum contraceptive implants: A randomized controlled trial. (2024-09-18). Accessed 2026-11-09.
43. BMC Psychology (Maghalian et al.), Informational video on preoperative anxiety and postoperative satisfaction prior to elective cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2024-01-02). Accessed 2026-11-09.
44. Women & Health (Abuzaid et al.), Effectiveness of preoperative multimedia educational sessions on the levels of anxiety and satisfaction among women undergoing cesarean: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2024-05-05). Accessed 2026-11-09.
45. Obstetrics & Gynecology (Balk et al.), Televisits Compared With In-Person Visits for Routine Antenatal Care: A Systematic Review. (2023-06-07). Accessed 2026-11-09.
46. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology (D'Alberti et al.), Hybrid Maternity Care and Impact on Pregnancy Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. (2026-01-06). Accessed 2026-11-09.
47. Obstetrics & Gynecology (DeNicola et al.), Telehealth Interventions to Improve Obstetric and Gynecologic Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review. (2020-Feb). Accessed 2026-11-09.
48. The Lancet (Palmer et al.), Widespread implementation of a low-cost telehealth service in the delivery of antenatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic: an interrupted time-series analysis. (2021-Jul). Accessed 2026-11-09.
49. The Lancet Digital Health (Thirugnanasundralingam et al.), Effect of telehealth-integrated antenatal care on pregnancy outcomes in Australia: an interrupted time-series analysis. (2023-Nov). Accessed 2026-11-09.
50. JAMA Network Open (Duryea et al.), Comparison Between In-Person and Audio-Only Virtual Prenatal Visits and Perinatal Outcomes. (2021-04-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
51. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Dalrymple et al.), The relationship between virtual antenatal care and pregnancy outcomes in a diverse UK inner-city population: a group-based trajectory modeling approach using routine health records. (2025-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-09.
52. Telemedicine and e-Health (Bodas et al.), Obstetrician-Gynecologists' Telehealth Provision at the Beginning, During, and Latter Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic. (2024-10-14). Accessed 2026-11-09.
53. Telemedicine and e-Health (Guendelman et al.), Use of Telehealth During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Practicing Maternal-Fetal Medicine Clinicians. (2022-10-11). Accessed 2026-11-09.
54. Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health (Wu et al.), Telemedicine for Routine Prenatal Care: Use and Satisfaction During the COVID-19 Pandemic. (2024-03-13). Accessed 2026-11-09.
55. Obstetrics & Gynecology (Lua-Mailland et al.), Virtual Compared With In-Office Postoperative Visits After Urogynecologic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. (2024-08-08). Accessed 2026-11-09.
56. Obstetrics & Gynecology (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Clinical Consensus—Obstetrics), Tailored Prenatal Care Delivery for Pregnant Individuals: ACOG Clinical Consensus No. 8. (2025-May). Accessed 2026-11-09.
57. American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2025 Diplomate Status (2026). Accessed 2026-11-09.
58. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics (Silvestre, Lazenby), Geographic variation in supply, demand, and adequacy of the obstetrics and gynecology physician workforce: forecasts and shortage risks in the United States (2026-02-14). Accessed 2026-11-09.
59. Florida Department of Health, Florida Physician Workforce 2026 Annual Report (2026-11-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
60. Florida Department of Health, Florida Physician Workforce 2024 Annual Report (2024-11-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
61. Florida Department of Health, Florida Physician Workforce 2025 Annual Report (2025-11-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
62. Obstetrics & Gynecology (Rayburn, Xierali), Projected Shortages and Distributional Challenges of Obstetrician-Gynecologists in the United States, 2025-2035 (2026-01-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
63. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America (Boender, Rayburn), The Obstetrician-Gynecologist Workforce and Access for Well-Woman Examinations: What, When, Where, and by Whom? (2025-12). Accessed 2026-11-09.
64. American Medical Association, Patient-Facing Telehealth: Use Is Higher Than Pre-Pandemic But With Great Variation Across Physician Specialties (2025). Accessed 2026-11-09.
65. American Medical Association, Physician Practice Characteristics in 2024: Private Practices Account for Less Than Half of Physicians in Most Specialties (2025). Accessed 2026-11-09.
66. JAMA Health Forum (Interrante et al.), Risk Factors for Loss of Hospital-Based Obstetric Care in Rural and Urban Hospitals (2026-09-04). Accessed 2026-11-09.
67. O&G Open (Ranchoff et al.), Effect of Hospital Obstetrics Unit Closures on Travel Time to Obstetric Care in the United States (2026-08-20). Accessed 2026-11-09.
68. Obstetrics & Gynecology (Atwani et al.), Association of Maternity Care Deserts With Maternal and Pregnancy-Related Mortality (2025-06-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
69. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
70. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2019 data) (2025-03-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
71. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
72. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2019 data) (2025-03-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
73. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2019 data) (2025-03-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
74. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
75. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2019 data) (2025-03-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
76. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
77. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
78. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
79. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician Fee Schedule - Indicators for 2024B (2024-10-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
80. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2025 Child and Adult Health Care Quality Measures Quality (2026-09-22). Accessed 2026-11-09.
81. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2025 Child and Adult Health Care Quality Measures Quality (2026-09-22). Accessed 2026-11-09.
82. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2024 Child and Adult Health Care Quality Measures Quality (2025-09-22). Accessed 2026-11-09.
83. KFF, Medicaid Postpartum Coverage Extension Tracker | KFF (2026-07-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
84. KFF, Medicaid Postpartum Coverage Extension Tracker data file | KFF (2026-07-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
85. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
86. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
87. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook: Physicians and Surgeons (2026-08-27). Accessed 2026-11-09.
88. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Projections Table 1.2: Occupational projections, 2025-35, and worker characteristics, 2025 (2026-08-27). Accessed 2026-11-09.
89. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
90. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
91. U.S. Census Bureau, Vintage 2025 Population Estimates: Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for the United States (nc-est2025-agesex-res) (2026-04-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
92. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
93. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
94. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
95. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
96. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
97. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
98. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
99. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
100. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
101. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
102. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
103. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
104. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
105. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
106. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
107. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
108. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
109. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
110. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
111. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
112. U.S. Census Bureau, Vintage 2025 Population Estimates: Annual Population Estimates for States (NST-EST2025-ALLDATA) (2026-01-27). Accessed 2026-11-09.
113. U.S. Census Bureau, Vintage 2025 Population Estimates: Annual County Resident Population Estimates by Selected Age Groups and Sex, Florida (cc-est2025-agesex-12) (2026-06-25). Accessed 2026-11-09.
114. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, QCEW open data, 2025 annual averages, industry 621111 (2026-09-03). Accessed 2026-11-09.
115. U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2023 (Census Data API, cbp) (2025-06-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
116. U.S. Census Bureau, Nonemployer Statistics 2024 (Census Data API, nonemp) (2026-06-25). Accessed 2026-11-09.
117. U.S. Census Bureau, Nonemployer Statistics 2023 (Census Data API, nonemp) (2025-06-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
118. U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2023 (Census Data API, cbp) (2025-06-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
119. U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2023 (Census Data API, cbp) (2025-06-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
120. U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 Economic Census: Selected Statistics by Industry (ecnbasic) (2025-01-23). Accessed 2026-11-09.
121. U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 Economic Census: Industry by Products (ecnnapcsind) (2024-12-12). Accessed 2026-11-09.
122. U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 Economic Census: Telemedicine Services by Industry (ecntelemeds) (2025-01-23). Accessed 2026-11-09.
123. U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Integrated Economic Survey: Detailed Operating Expenses: 2024 (aiesexp02) (2026-05-28). Accessed 2026-11-09.
124. National Center for Health Statistics (CDC), Births in the United States, 2025 (NCHS Data Brief No. 571) (2026-10-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
125. National Center for Health Statistics (CDC), Births: Final Data for 2024 (National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 75, No. 2) (2026-06-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
126. National Center for Health Statistics (CDC), NCHS - VSRR Quarterly provisional estimates for selected birth indicators (data.cdc.gov 76vv-a7x8) (2026-09-22). Accessed 2026-11-09.
127. National Center for Health Statistics (CDC), NCHS - VSRR Quarterly provisional estimates for selected birth indicators (data.cdc.gov 76vv-a7x8) (2026-09-22). Accessed 2026-11-09.
128. National Center for Health Statistics (CDC), Induction of Labor Increases in the United States: 2016 to 2024 (NCHS Data Brief No. 554) (2026-03-25). Accessed 2026-11-09.
129. National Center for Health Statistics (CDC), Epidural or Spinal Anesthesia Use for Singleton Vaginal Deliveries: United States, 2016-2024 (NCHS Data Brief No. 553) (2026-03-25). Accessed 2026-11-09.
130. National Center for Health Statistics (CDC), Changes in Timing of Prenatal Care Initiation: United States, 2021-2024 (NCHS Data Brief No. 550) (2026-02-19). Accessed 2026-11-09.
131. National Center for Health Statistics (CDC), Maternal Mortality Rates in the United States, 2023 (NCHS Health E-Stat 100) (2025-02). Accessed 2026-11-09.
132. National Center for Health Statistics (CDC), VSRR Provisional Maternal Death Counts and Rates (data.cdc.gov e2d5-ggg7) (2026-09-22). Accessed 2026-11-09.
133. National Center for Health Statistics (CDC), VSRR Provisional Maternal Death Counts and Rates (data.cdc.gov e2d5-ggg7) (2026-09-22). Accessed 2026-11-09.
134. National Center for Health Statistics (CDC), VSRR Provisional Maternal Death Counts and Rates (data.cdc.gov e2d5-ggg7) (2026-09-22). Accessed 2026-11-09.
135. National Center for Health Statistics (CDC), VSRR Provisional Maternal Death Counts and Rates (data.cdc.gov e2d5-ggg7) (2026-09-22). Accessed 2026-11-09.
136. National Center for Health Statistics (CDC), VSRR Provisional Maternal Death Counts and Rates (data.cdc.gov e2d5-ggg7) (2026-09-22). Accessed 2026-11-09.
137. National Center for Health Statistics (CDC), Maternal Mortality in the United States: Changes in Coding, Publication, and Data Release, 2018 (National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 69, No. 2) (2020-01-30). Accessed 2026-11-09.
138. National Center for Health Statistics (CDC), Fetal Mortality: United States, 2024 (National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 75, No. 6) (2026-09-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
139. National Center for Health Statistics (CDC), Current Contraceptive Status Among Females Ages 15-49: United States, 2022-2023 (NCHS Data Brief No. 539) (2025-08). Accessed 2026-11-09.
140. National Center for Health Statistics (CDC), Characteristics of Women Ages 40-60 with Menopausal Symptoms: United States, 2025 (NCHS Data Brief No. 575) (2026-10-20). Accessed 2026-11-09.
141. Florida Department of Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics, via FLHealthCHARTS, Resident Live Births: Ten Year Report (undated). Accessed 2026-11-09.
142. Florida Department of Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics, via FLHealthCHARTS, Births to Mothers Initiating Prenatal Care in the 1st Trimester: Ten Year Report (undated). Accessed 2026-11-09.
143. Organon & Co., Organon & Co. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-02-24). Accessed 2026-11-09.
144. Hologic, Inc., Hologic, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (ended September 27, 2025) (2025-11-18). Accessed 2026-11-09.
145. The Cooper Companies, Inc., The Cooper Companies, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (ended October 31, 2025) (2025-12-05). Accessed 2026-11-09.
146. Myovant Sciences Ltd., Myovant Sciences Ltd. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022 (2022-05-11). Accessed 2026-11-09.
147. Bayer AG, Bayer AG Form 20-F for fiscal year 2006 (2007-03-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
148. Hims & Hers Health, Inc., Hims & Hers Health, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-02-23). Accessed 2026-11-09.
149. LifeMD, Inc., LifeMD, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-03-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
150. Bayer AG, Bayer AG Form 15F (2007-09-28). Accessed 2026-11-09.
151. Femasys Inc., Femasys Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-03-31). Accessed 2026-11-09.
152. Agile Therapeutics, Inc., Agile Therapeutics, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2023 (2024-03-28). Accessed 2026-11-09.
153. biote Corp., biote Corp. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-03-13). Accessed 2026-11-09.
154. Florida Department of State (Florida Administrative Code), Rule: 64B8-11.001 Advertising (2026-03-19). Accessed 2026-11-09.
155. Florida Department of State (Florida Administrative Code), Board of Medicine rule, 64B8-11.001 Advertising (2026-03-19). Accessed 2026-11-09.
156. The Florida Legislature, 458.331 Grounds for disciplinary action; action by the board and department (2026). Accessed 2026-11-09.
157. The Florida Legislature, 456.072 Grounds for discipline; penalties; enforcement (2026). Accessed 2026-11-09.
158. The Florida Legislature, 456.47 Use of telehealth to provide services (2026). Accessed 2026-11-09.
159. The Florida Legislature, 390.0111 Termination of pregnancies (2026). Accessed 2026-11-09.
160. The Florida Senate, CS/SB 300 (2023) (2023-04-14). Accessed 2026-11-09.
161. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 45 CFR 164.508 (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
162. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 45 CFR 164.501 (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
163. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 45 CFR 164.514 (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
164. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 45 CFR 102.3 (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
165. Federal Trade Commission (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 16 CFR Part 255, Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (2023-07-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
166. Federal Trade Commission (Federal Register), Trade Regulation Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials (2024-08-22). Accessed 2026-11-09.
167. Federal Trade Commission (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 16 CFR Part 465, Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
168. Federal Trade Commission (Federal Register), Adjustments to Civil Penalty Amounts (2025-01-17). Accessed 2026-11-09.
169. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 21 CFR 202.1 (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
170. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Federal Register), Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertisements: Presentation of the Major Statement in a Clear, Conspicuous, and Neutral Manner in Advertisements in Television and Radio Format (2023-11-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
171. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (Unified Agenda, Federal Register), Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions-2026 (2026-08-14). Accessed 2026-11-09.
172. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA Launches Crackdown on Deceptive Drug Advertising (2025-09-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
173. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 21 CFR Part 801, Labeling (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
174. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, HHS Advances Women's Health, Removes Misleading FDA Warnings on Hormone Replacement Therapy (2025-11-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
175. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA Requests Labeling Changes Related to Safety Information to Clarify the Benefit/Risk Considerations for Menopausal Hormone Therapies (2025-11-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
176. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA Approves Labeling Changes to Menopausal Hormone Therapy Products (2026-02-12). Accessed 2026-11-09.
177. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Drug Trials Snapshots: LYNKUET (2025-10-24). Accessed 2026-11-09.
178. YouTube (Google), Medical misinformation policy - YouTube Help (undated (live help page)). Accessed 2026-11-09.
179. YouTube (Google), Apply to be a source in YouTube health features - YouTube Help (undated (live help page)). Accessed 2026-11-09.
180. YouTube (Google), Get health information on YouTube - YouTube Help (undated (live help page)). Accessed 2026-11-09.
181. World Health Organization, Endometriosis (fact sheet) (2025-10-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
182. World Health Organization, Endometriosis (fact sheet) (2021-03-31). Accessed 2026-11-09.
183. Acta Chirurgica Scandinavica (Forsgren et al.), Colorectal endometriosis (1983). Accessed 2026-11-09.
184. Journal of Reproductive Medicine (Boling et al.), Disability from endometriosis in the United States Army (1988-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
185. Journal of Reproductive Medicine (Wheeler), Epidemiology of endometriosis-associated infertility (1989-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
186. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America (Eskenazi and Warner), Epidemiology of endometriosis (1997-06). Accessed 2026-11-09.
187. endometriosis.org (endometriosis information site), Facts about endometriosis (2021-03-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
188. Fertility and Sterility (Buck Louis et al.; NICHD), Incidence of endometriosis by study population and diagnostic method: the ENDO study (2011-08). Accessed 2026-11-09.
189. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office on Women's Health, Endometriosis (2025-10-24). Accessed 2026-11-09.
190. National Center for Health Statistics (CDC), Endometriosis, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, and Uterine Fibroids in Women Ages 20-49: United States, 2022-2023 (NCHS Health E-Stat 121) (2026-07). Accessed 2026-11-09.
191. BJOG (Rowlands et al.), Prevalence and incidence of endometriosis in Australian women: a data linkage cohort study (2021-03). Accessed 2026-11-09.
192. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology (Ghiasi, Kulkarni and Missmer), Is Endometriosis More Common and More Severe Than It Was 30 Years Ago? (2020-02). Accessed 2026-11-09.
193. Human Reproduction (Hadfield et al.), Delay in the diagnosis of endometriosis: a survey of women from the USA and the UK (1996-04). Accessed 2026-11-09.
194. Fertility and Sterility (Nnoaham et al.; World Endometriosis Research Foundation Global Study), Impact of endometriosis on quality of life and work productivity: a multicenter study across ten countries (2011-08). Accessed 2026-11-09.
195. Endometriosis UK (patient charity; survey owner), Endometriosis Diagnosis Survey 2011: Summary Findings (2011-02). Accessed 2026-11-09.
196. Journal of Women's Health (Soliman, Fuldeore and Snabes; AbbVie), Factors Associated with Time to Endometriosis Diagnosis in the United States (2017-07). Accessed 2026-11-09.
197. BJOG (De Corte et al.), Time to Diagnose Endometriosis: Current Status, Challenges and Regional Characteristics-A Systematic Literature Review (2025-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
198. Chelsea Well Women (private gynaecology practice, London), Why does it take so long to diagnose endometriosis? (2025-01-13). Accessed 2026-11-09.
199. BJOG (Betran, Torloni, Zhang and Gulmezoglu; WHO Working Group on Caesarean Section), WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates (2016). Accessed 2026-11-09.
200. World Health Organization, WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates (WHO/RHR/15.02) (2015-04-14). Accessed 2026-11-09.
201. World Health Organization, WHO statement on caesarean section rates (2015-04-14). Accessed 2026-11-09.
202. Reproductive Health (Betran et al.; WHO), What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies (2015-06-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
203. JAMA (Molina et al.), Relationship Between Cesarean Delivery Rate and Maternal and Neonatal Mortality (2015-12-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
204. BMJ Global Health (Betran et al.; WHO), Trends and projections of caesarean section rates: global and regional estimates (2021-06). Accessed 2026-11-09.
205. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC Reports Pregnancy-Related Deaths Still Higher in Black Women than White Women (2003-02-20). Accessed 2026-11-09.
206. CDC (Koonin et al.; MMWR Surveillance Summaries), Pregnancy-related mortality surveillance--United States, 1987-1990 (1997-08-08). Accessed 2026-11-09.
207. Obstetrics & Gynecology (Berg et al.; CDC), Pregnancy-related mortality in the United States, 1998 to 2005 (2010-12). Accessed 2026-11-09.
208. CDC (Petersen et al.; MMWR), Vital Signs: Pregnancy-Related Deaths, United States, 2011-2015, and Strategies for Prevention, 13 States, 2013-2017 (2019-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
209. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System (2025). Accessed 2026-11-09.
210. National Center for Health Statistics (CDC), Maternal Mortality Rates in the United States, 2023 (NCHS Health E-Stat 100, Hoyert) (2025-02). Accessed 2026-11-09.
211. The Lancet (Quenby et al.), Miscarriage matters: the epidemiological, physical, psychological, and economic costs of early pregnancy loss (2021-05-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
212. BMJ (Magnus et al.), Role of maternal age and pregnancy history in risk of miscarriage: prospective register based study (2019-03-20). Accessed 2026-11-09.
213. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology (Rossen, Ahrens and Branum; NCHS), Trends in Risk of Pregnancy Loss Among US Women, 1990-2011 (2018-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
214. New England Journal of Medicine (Wilcox et al.), Incidence of early loss of pregnancy (1988-07-28). Accessed 2026-11-09.
215. Miscarriage Support (New Zealand support group), How Common Are Miscarriages? (2015-05-20). Accessed 2026-11-09.
216. JAMA (Crandall, Mehta and Manson), Management of Menopausal Symptoms: A Review (2023-02-07). Accessed 2026-11-09.
217. Climacteric (Ellahi et al.), Global prevalence of vasomotor symptoms in the menopause transition: systematic review and meta-analysis (2026-09-16). Accessed 2026-11-09.
218. Climacteric (Williams et al.), Frequency and severity of vasomotor symptoms among peri- and postmenopausal women in the United States (2008-02). Accessed 2026-11-09.
219. British Journal of Preventive and Social Medicine (McKinlay and Jefferys), The menopausal syndrome (1974-05). Accessed 2026-11-09.
220. University of Rochester Medical Center, Obstetrics and Gynecology (menoPAUSE blog), What Do We Know About Hot Flashes in Menopause? (2015-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
221. EyeView Digital (video production and testing vendor; sold the videos it tested), UMOO - a prime beef example of EyeView's success (2009-02-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
222. Unbounce (landing-page software seller), The benefits of using video on landing pages (2010-08). Accessed 2026-11-09.
223. Unbounce (landing-page software seller; analysis of its own customers' pages), Video on landing pages means more conversions, right? Wrong. Here's why (2021-08-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
224. Unbounce (landing-page software seller; repeater), 15 high-converting landing page examples (+ why they work) (2025-04-06). Accessed 2026-11-09.

Update policy and change log

We re-verify every figure quarterly and when a major source publishes a new edition. The next scheduled review is February 2027. Corrections go to contact@markstudios.com.

• Nov 9, 2026: First published with 734 figures from 74 publishers, each checked against its original source.