Why do they take the risk? A systematic review of the qualitative literature on informal sector abortions in settings where abortion is legal.
Abortion Applicants
/ statistics & numerical data
Abortion, Legal
/ statistics & numerical data
Cultural Characteristics
Female
Global Health
Health Services Accessibility
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Informal Sector
Pregnancy
Social Stigma
Women's Health Services
/ organization & administration
Informal sector abortion
Legal abortion
Qualitative research
Systematic reviews
Unsafe abortion
women’s rights
Journal
BMC women's health
ISSN: 1472-6874
Titre abrégé: BMC Womens Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088690
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 04 2019
08 04 2019
Historique:
received:
20
07
2018
accepted:
28
03
2019
entrez:
10
4
2019
pubmed:
10
4
2019
medline:
10
7
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Restrictive abortion laws are the single most important determinant of unsafe abortion, a major, yet preventable, global health issue. While reviews have been conducted on the extent of the phenomenon, no study has so far analysed the evidence of why women turn to informal sector providers when legal alternatives are available. This work provides a systematic review of the qualitative literature on informal sector abortion in setting where abortion is legal. We used the PRISMA guidelines to search Pubmed, Web of Science, Sciencedirect and Google Scholar databases between January and February 2018. 2794 documents in English and French were screened for eligibility against pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Articles investigating women's reasons for aborting in the informal sector in settings where abortion is legal were included. In total, sixteen articles were identified as eligible for this review. Findings were reported following the PRISMA guidelines. The review highlights the diverse reasons women turn to the informal sector, as abortions outside of legal health facilities were reported to be a widespread and normalised practice in countries where legal abortion is provided. Women cited a range of reasons for aborting in the informal sector; these included fear of mistreatment by staff, long waiting lists, high costs, inability to fulfil regulations, privacy concerns and lack of awareness about the legality of abortion or where to procure a safe and legal abortion. Not only was unsafe abortion spoken of in terms of medical and physical safety, but also in terms of social and economic security. The use of informal sector abortions (ISAs) is a widespread and normalised practice in many countries despite the liberalisation of abortion laws. Although ISAs are not inherently unsafe, the practice in a setting where it is illegal will increase the likelihood that women will not be given the necessary information, or that they will be punished. This study brings to the fore the diverse reasons why women opt to abort outside formal healthcare settings and their issues with provision of abortion services in legal contexts, providing an evidence base for future research and policies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Restrictive abortion laws are the single most important determinant of unsafe abortion, a major, yet preventable, global health issue. While reviews have been conducted on the extent of the phenomenon, no study has so far analysed the evidence of why women turn to informal sector providers when legal alternatives are available. This work provides a systematic review of the qualitative literature on informal sector abortion in setting where abortion is legal.
METHODS
We used the PRISMA guidelines to search Pubmed, Web of Science, Sciencedirect and Google Scholar databases between January and February 2018. 2794 documents in English and French were screened for eligibility against pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Articles investigating women's reasons for aborting in the informal sector in settings where abortion is legal were included. In total, sixteen articles were identified as eligible for this review. Findings were reported following the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
The review highlights the diverse reasons women turn to the informal sector, as abortions outside of legal health facilities were reported to be a widespread and normalised practice in countries where legal abortion is provided. Women cited a range of reasons for aborting in the informal sector; these included fear of mistreatment by staff, long waiting lists, high costs, inability to fulfil regulations, privacy concerns and lack of awareness about the legality of abortion or where to procure a safe and legal abortion. Not only was unsafe abortion spoken of in terms of medical and physical safety, but also in terms of social and economic security.
CONCLUSION
The use of informal sector abortions (ISAs) is a widespread and normalised practice in many countries despite the liberalisation of abortion laws. Although ISAs are not inherently unsafe, the practice in a setting where it is illegal will increase the likelihood that women will not be given the necessary information, or that they will be punished. This study brings to the fore the diverse reasons why women opt to abort outside formal healthcare settings and their issues with provision of abortion services in legal contexts, providing an evidence base for future research and policies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30961574
doi: 10.1186/s12905-019-0751-0
pii: 10.1186/s12905-019-0751-0
pmc: PMC6454783
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
55Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Foundation (Newton Fund)
ID : MR/R022747/1
Pays : International
Références
BMC Womens Health. 2017 Oct 2;17(1):95
pubmed: 28969631
Asia Pac J Public Health. 2012 Nov;24(6):989-1001
pubmed: 21551135
Bull World Health Organ. 2011 May 1;89(5):360-70
pubmed: 21556304
BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2018 Oct 19;:
pubmed: 30341065
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Sep;141:9-18
pubmed: 26233296
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Aug;28(6):859-69
pubmed: 24962349
Health Care Women Int. 2018 Feb;39(2):186-207
pubmed: 29068769
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2010 Aug;24(4):457-66
pubmed: 20462800
Contraception. 2018 Feb;97(2):177-183
pubmed: 28941978
J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2010 Jan;36(1):21-5
pubmed: 20067668
Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2016 Sep 1;42(3):121-130
pubmed: 28825903
Reprod Health Matters. 2010 Nov;18(36):136-46
pubmed: 21111358
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100
pubmed: 19621070
BJOG. 2005 Sep;112(9):1236-42
pubmed: 16101602
Contraception. 2018 Feb;97(2):184-188
pubmed: 28935218
Health Promot Perspect. 2017 Jun 14;7(3):117-123
pubmed: 28695098
Afr J Reprod Health. 2015 Mar;19(1):34-43
pubmed: 26103693
Lancet. 2016 Jul 16;388(10041):258-67
pubmed: 27179755
Reprod Health Matters. 2004 Nov;12(24 Suppl):227-34
pubmed: 15938178
BMC Public Health. 2009 Aug 18;9:296
pubmed: 19689791
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 6;12(1):e0166287
pubmed: 28060817
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 24;11(3):e0152224
pubmed: 27010629
Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2018 Dec;50(4):157-163
pubmed: 29992793
Ethiop Med J. 2000 Jan;38(1):35-42
pubmed: 11144878
Mater Sociomed. 2017 Mar;29(1):58-67
pubmed: 28484357
Soc Sci Med. 2016 Mar;153:201-9
pubmed: 26921835
J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2017 Jul;43(3):216-221
pubmed: 28330856
Reprod Health Matters. 2010 Nov;18(36):102-10
pubmed: 21111354
PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e53346
pubmed: 23341939
Soc Sci Med. 1998 May;46(10):1303-12
pubmed: 9665562
Reprod Health Matters. 2014 May;22(43):149-58
pubmed: 24908466
Afr J Fertil Sexual Reprod Heal. 1996 Mar;1(1):42-9
pubmed: 12159498
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2009 Dec;18(12):2017-22
pubmed: 20044865
Health Hum Rights. 2017 Jun;19(1):13-27
pubmed: 28630538
Contraception. 2013 Feb;87(2):128-30
pubmed: 23228504
Int J Nurs Stud. 2015 Jul;52(7):1269-76
pubmed: 25726430