How task-sharing in abortion care became the norm in Sweden: A case study of historic and current determinants and events.
Abortion care
Health policy
Safe abortion
Sweden
Task-sharing
Task-shifting
Unsafe abortion
Journal
International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
ISSN: 1879-3479
Titre abrégé: Int J Gynaecol Obstet
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0210174
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2020
Jul 2020
Historique:
entrez:
21
11
2020
pubmed:
22
11
2020
medline:
26
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We performed a country case study using thematic analysis of interviews and existing grey and published literature to identify facilitators and barriers to the implementation of midwife-provided abortion care in Sweden. Identified facilitating factors were: (1) the historical role and high status of Swedish midwives; (2) Swedish research and development of medical abortion that enabled an enlarged clinical role for midwives; (3) collaborations between individual clinicians and researchers within the professional associations, and the autonomy of clinical units to implement changes in clinical practice; (4) a historic precedent of changes in abortion policy occurring without prior official or legal sanction; (5) a context of liberal abortion laws, secularity, gender equality, public support for abortion, trust in public institutions; and (6) an increasing global interest in task-shifting to increase access and reduce costs. Identified barriers/risks were: (1) the lack of systems for monitoring and evaluation; and (2) a loss of physician competence in abortion care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33219992
doi: 10.1002/ijgo.13003
pmc: PMC7539959
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
34-42Subventions
Organisme : HRP/WHO
Informations de copyright
© 2020 World Health Organization; licensed by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Références
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2005 Sep;10(3):184-91
pubmed: 16318966
Reprod Health. 2011 Dec 22;8:39
pubmed: 22192901
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 27;(7):CD011242
pubmed: 26214844
PLoS One. 2013 May 31;8(5):e64775
pubmed: 23741391
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016 Feb;95(2):173-81
pubmed: 26565074
Ethiop J Health Sci. 2014 Sep;24 Suppl:15-28
pubmed: 25489180
Ethiop Med J. 2015 Jan;53(1):25-34
pubmed: 26591289
Reprod Health Matters. 2015 May;23(45):90-2
pubmed: 26278836
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 22;12(6):e0179600
pubmed: 28640845
BJOG. 2015 Mar;122(4):510-7
pubmed: 25040643
Contraception. 2012 Apr;85(4):394-7
pubmed: 22067756
BMC Public Health. 2017 Sep 21;17(1):730
pubmed: 28934942
Hum Reprod. 1994 Jun;9 Suppl 1:121-5
pubmed: 7962458
Hum Reprod. 2010 May;25(5):1153-7
pubmed: 20172871
Lancet. 2015 Jun 13;385(9985):2392-8
pubmed: 25817472
Am J Public Health. 2004 Aug;94(8):1312-20
pubmed: 15284032
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016 Jun;21(3):201-6
pubmed: 26838273
Lancet. 2015 Feb 21;385(9969):698-704
pubmed: 25468164
Lancet Glob Health. 2015 Sep;3(9):e537-45
pubmed: 26275330
Contraception. 2004 Nov;70(5):387-92
pubmed: 15504378
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 01;10(9):e0133354
pubmed: 26327217
Sex Reprod Healthc. 2010 Feb;1(1):3-5
pubmed: 21122589
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 30;11(6):e0158645
pubmed: 27362270
BMC Womens Health. 2014 Aug 15;14:98
pubmed: 25127545
Contraception. 2014 May;89(5):460-5
pubmed: 24594432
Lancet. 2011 Apr 2;377(9772):1155-61
pubmed: 21458058