Resume-aware faculty matching

Find professors who actually fit you

Upload your resume. Four AI agents analyze your background, rank the faculty who fit, inspect their recent research, and help you draft outreach — grounded in their actual work, not templates.

Free to startNo credit cardCancel anytime
Top matches Balanced preset
Dr. Sarah Chen
Stanford · Interpretability · NLP
91
Dr. Marcus Holloway
MIT · Robotics · RL
84
Dr. Aisha Okonkwo
CMU · Fairness · HCI
82
Nova · Professor Researcher · re-ranking top 20…

Lindsey Yates

· Assistant ProfessorVerified

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · Maternal and Child Health

Active 2020–2026

h-index4
Citations47
Papers1919 last 5y
Funding
See your match with Lindsey Yates — sign in to PhdFit.Sign in

About

Lindsey Yates, PhD, MPH, is an assistant professor in the Department of Maternal and Child Health at the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health. She is a health equity social scientist whose research, teaching, and practice sit at the intersection of family planning, maternal and child health services, and implementation science. Dr. Yates focuses on exploring the impact of systemic racism and other types of systemic oppression on racialized and other marginalized populations. She is invested in identifying and implementing systemic solutions to racial health disparities in maternal and child health outcomes, specifically those most impactful to Black women, birthing people, and children.

Research topics

  • Political Science
  • Sociology
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Computer Science
  • Knowledge management
  • Physical therapy
  • Applied psychology
  • Medical education
  • Demography
  • Psychology
  • Criminology
  • Gender studies
  • Environmental health
  • Social psychology

Selected publications

  • Pregnancy outcomes among medically complex populations with high risk of pregnancy mortality in Virginia: a retrospective observational study

    BMC Medicine · 2026-02-18

    articleOpen access

    BACKGROUND: Abortion may be medically indicated to avert death or permanent harm of the pregnant person. However, some US states now prevent access to abortion for these patients. To evaluate the population for whom this may cause harm, we aimed to estimate the prevalence of severe chronic conditions and pregnancy complications for which induced abortion is indicated, the odds of pregnancy for patients with severe chronic conditions, and compare pregnancy outcomes including induced abortion for pregnancies where such indications are present with pregnancies where they are not. METHODS: In a retrospective observational study using the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database (2018-2019), we identified 1,502,965 female patients aged 14-55 with ≥ 6 months insurance coverage. Medical codes identified severe chronic conditions and pregnancy complications. Pregnancy outcomes were classified using an established algorithm. RESULTS: Among reproductive-aged people, 2.9% had severe chronic conditions that could threaten life with pregnancy. Among 101,582 people who experienced pregnancy, 5.6% had life-threatening complications before their third trimester. Severe chronic conditions were associated with reduced risk of pregnancy (OR: 0.44 [95% CI: 0.41-0.46]), but sickle cell disease patients had increased odds of pregnancy (OR: 2.42 [95% CI: 2.10-2.78]). Compared to pregnancies with neither early complications or severe conditions present, pregnancies involving severe chronic conditions had fewer live births (68.2% vs. 75.3%), more spontaneous abortions (16.9% vs. 12.2%), and more induced abortions (3.7% vs. 2.2%), while pregnancies with early complications also had fewer live births (61.7%) and more spontaneous abortions (25.2%; p < 0.01 for all comparisons). Abortion ratios (induced abortions per 1000 live births) in these data were 5-6 times lower than in Center for Disease Control abortion surveillance data for Virginia 2018-2019, indicating under-ascertainment of induced abortion. CONCLUSIONS: In a state with some abortion restrictions and some protections, thousands of patients experience severe chronic conditions or pregnancy complications for which induced abortion is indicated.

  • Single-Visit Long-Acting Reversible Contraception (LARC) Insertion Practices Before and After Implementation of Practice Changes Including Telehealth Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic in North Carolina

    UNC Libraries · 2025-07-10

    articleOpen access

    BACKGROUND We sought to characterize changes in single-visit long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) placement before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in North Carolina. METHODS We utilized an interrupted time series analysis to characterize single-visit LARC placement after the start of the pandemic across a state-wide health care system. RESULTS Within our cohort of 4591 patients receiving a LARC, 70.36% received single-visit LARC before and 66.98% after the start of the pandemic (odds ratio [OR] = 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 &ndash; 0.97). There was a slight monthly decrease in the likelihood of single-visit LARC after the pandemic started (0.001, 95% CI: -0.004 &ndash; 0.005). LIMITATIONS Limitations include the electronic health record data-based abstraction of variables, as well as the inability to assess patient preferences in visit scheduling. CONCLUSIONS Rapid increases in telehealth were associated with slight decreases in single-visit LARC placement. Further study is needed to better understand patient goals and experiences, as well as clinical and public health impacts surrounding the use of telehealth for contraceptive care.

  • The Association between Socio-Economic Deprivation and Receipt of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception at a Single Clinic Visit

    UNC Libraries · 2025-09-14

    articleOpen access
  • Driving Time and Single-Visit Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Provision in North Carolina

    North Carolina Medical Journal · 2025-06-27

    articleOpen access

    BACKGROUND: We examined the association between driving time and receipt of single-visit long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) in North Carolina. METHODS: We characterized drive time with single-visit LARC placement across a state-wide cohort of 4319 patients who received LARC between March 15, 2019, and March 14, 2021. Drive time was calculated on ArcGIS Pro 3.0. RESULTS: 68% of patients received a single-visit LARC. Patients who lived 30 minutes from their LARC appointment had 1.54 times the odds of single-visit LARC placement compared to patients who drove 10 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26 1.90). LIMITATIONS: Our data are limited by the electronic medical record-based design, as well as the assumption that the patients home address is their drive time location of origin. CONCLUSIONS: Increased driving time is associated with single-visit LARC placement. Understanding and addressing barriers to care, including geographic accessibility, is essential to enhancing access to high-quality, person-centered contraceptive care.

  • Single-Visit Long-Acting Reversible Contraception (LARC) Insertion Practices Before and After Implementation of Practice Changes Including Telehealth Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic in North Carolina

    North Carolina Medical Journal · 2025-06-26

    articleOpen access

    BACKGROUND: We sought to characterize changes in single-visit long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) placement before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in North Carolina. METHODS: We utilized an interrupted time series analysis to characterize single-visit LARC placement after the start of the pandemic across a state-wide health care system. RESULTS: Within our cohort of 4591 patients receiving a LARC, 70.36% received single-visit LARC before and 66.98% after the start of the pandemic (odds ratio [OR] = 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 - 0.97). There was a slight monthly decrease in the likelihood of single-visit LARC after the pandemic started (0.001, 95% CI: -0.004 - 0.005). LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the electronic health record data-based abstraction of variables, as well as the inability to assess patient preferences in visit scheduling. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid increases in telehealth were associated with slight decreases in single-visit LARC placement. Further study is needed to better understand patient goals and experiences, as well as clinical and public health impacts surrounding the use of telehealth for contraceptive care.

  • A Path Towards Reproductive Justice: Incorporating a RJ Framework into North Carolina’s Improving Community Outcomes for Maternal and Child Health Initiative

    UNC Libraries · 2025-04-26

    articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding
  • Rebuilding a Reproductive Future Informed by Disability and Reproductive Justice

    UNC Libraries · 2025-03-21

    articleOpen access
  • Driving Time and Single-Visit Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Provision in North Carolina

    UNC Libraries · 2025-07-10

    articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

    BACKGROUND We examined the association between driving time and receipt of single-visit long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) in North Carolina. METHODS We characterized drive time with single-visit LARC placement across a state-wide cohort of 4319 patients who received LARC between March 15, 2019, and March 14, 2021. Drive time was calculated on ArcGIS Pro 3.0. RESULTS 68% of patients received a single-visit LARC. Patients who lived &ge; 30 minutes from their LARC appointment had 1.54 times the odds of single-visit LARC placement compared to patients who drove &le; 10 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26 &ndash; 1.90). LIMITATIONS Our data are limited by the electronic medical record-based design, as well as the assumption that the patient&rsquo;s home address is their drive time location of origin. CONCLUSIONS Increased driving time is associated with single-visit LARC placement. Understanding and addressing barriers to care, including geographic accessibility, is essential to enhancing access to high-quality, person-centered contraceptive care.

  • Dobbs and disability: Implications of abortion restrictions for people with chronic health conditions

    UNC Libraries · 2025-04-29

    articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

    The United States has a long history of undermining the reproductive autonomy of people with chronic conditions. This includes people with disabilities that are seen or unseen, and related or not related to health. The Dobbs decision, a June 2022 Supreme Court ruling which reversed the long-held constitutional right to an abortion, carries tremendous impact on all people. However, people managing chronic health conditions are particularly at risk of harm by the constellation of abortion bans and restrictions emerging across the United States. For example, people with disabilities experience disproportionate exposure to sexual violence, higher rates of unwanted pregnancy, and are at greater risk of maternal and infant mortality and morbidity.

  • The association between socio-economic deprivation and receipt of long-acting reversible contraception at a single clinic visit

    Contraception · 2024-09-13 · 3 citations

    articleOpen access

Frequent coauthors

  • Gretchen S. Stuart

    University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

    6 shared
  • Kavita Shah Arora

    University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

    5 shared
  • Dorothy Cilenti

    5 shared
  • Bianca A. Allison

    4 shared
  • Ananya Tadikonda

    University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

    4 shared
  • Alanna E. Hirz

    UCLA Health

    4 shared
  • Sarah Verbiest

    4 shared
  • Sarah A. Birken

    Wake Forest University

    2 shared

Awards & honors

  • Dissertation Completion Fellowship 2019-2020, University of…
  • Resume-aware match score
  • Save to shortlist
  • AI-drafted outreach

See your match with Lindsey Yates

PhdFit ranks faculty by your research interests, methods, and publications — grounded in their actual work, not templates.

  • Free to start
  • No credit card
  • 30-second signup