Views and practice of abortion among Queensland midwives and sexual health nurses.
Australia
abortion
midwifery
nursing
Journal
The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology
ISSN: 1479-828X
Titre abrégé: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 0001027
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2022
04 2022
Historique:
revised:
30
12
2021
received:
01
07
2021
accepted:
24
01
2022
pubmed:
9
3
2022
medline:
3
5
2022
entrez:
8
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A significant barrier to the access of safe abortion is the lack of trained abortion providers. Recent studies show that with appropriate education, nurses and midwives can provide abortions as safely as medical practitioners. To examine the attitudes and practices of registered midwives (RMs) and sexual health nurses (SHNs) in Queensland toward abortion. A cross-sectional mixed-methods questionnaire was distributed to RMs and SHNs from the Queensland Nursing and Midwifery Union. Data were described and analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively. There was a 20% response rate (n = 624) to the survey from the overall study population. There were 53.5% who reported they would support the provision of abortion in any situation at all; 7.4% held views based on religion or conscience that would make them completely opposed to abortion. There were 92.9% who felt that education surrounding abortion should be part of the core curriculum for midwifery and/or nursing students in Australia. The qualitative responses demonstrated a variety of views and suggestions regarding the practice of abortion. There was a wide variation in views toward induced abortion from RMs and SHNs in Queensland. While a proportion of respondents opposed abortion in most circumstances, a significant group was in support of abortion in any situation and felt involvement in initiating and/or performing abortion would be within the scope of RMs and SHNs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
A significant barrier to the access of safe abortion is the lack of trained abortion providers. Recent studies show that with appropriate education, nurses and midwives can provide abortions as safely as medical practitioners.
AIMS
To examine the attitudes and practices of registered midwives (RMs) and sexual health nurses (SHNs) in Queensland toward abortion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A cross-sectional mixed-methods questionnaire was distributed to RMs and SHNs from the Queensland Nursing and Midwifery Union. Data were described and analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively.
RESULTS
There was a 20% response rate (n = 624) to the survey from the overall study population. There were 53.5% who reported they would support the provision of abortion in any situation at all; 7.4% held views based on religion or conscience that would make them completely opposed to abortion. There were 92.9% who felt that education surrounding abortion should be part of the core curriculum for midwifery and/or nursing students in Australia. The qualitative responses demonstrated a variety of views and suggestions regarding the practice of abortion.
CONCLUSIONS
There was a wide variation in views toward induced abortion from RMs and SHNs in Queensland. While a proportion of respondents opposed abortion in most circumstances, a significant group was in support of abortion in any situation and felt involvement in initiating and/or performing abortion would be within the scope of RMs and SHNs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35257360
doi: 10.1111/ajo.13489
pmc: PMC9314146
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
219-225Subventions
Organisme : James Cook University
Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
Références
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2006 Aug;30(4):329-33
pubmed: 16956161
J Midwifery Womens Health. 2020 Mar;65(2):231-237
pubmed: 31793187
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020 Apr;60(2):296-301
pubmed: 31411741
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 27;(7):CD011242
pubmed: 26214844
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020 Apr;60(2):290-295
pubmed: 31328257
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Oct 22;16(1):612
pubmed: 27770797
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2020 Jun;47(2):287-316
pubmed: 32451019
Contemp Nurse. 2008 Dec;31(1):9-19
pubmed: 19117497
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 30;11(6):e0158645
pubmed: 27362270
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020 Jun;60(3):459-464
pubmed: 31916255
J Clin Nurs. 2020 May;29(9-10):1513-1526
pubmed: 32045070
Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Sep;8(9):e1152-e1161
pubmed: 32710833
Aust J Rural Health. 2014 Jun;22(3):121-6
pubmed: 25039846
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2017 Apr;22(2):114-122
pubmed: 28122473
J Prim Health Care. 2020 Mar;12(1):49-56
pubmed: 32223850
Lancet. 2016 Jul 16;388(10041):258-67
pubmed: 27179755
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2007 Dec;28(4):231-7
pubmed: 17852654
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013 May;121 Suppl 1:S16-9
pubmed: 23477700
Int J Womens Health. 2018 Nov 23;10:751-762
pubmed: 30538585
BJOG. 2015 Mar;122(4):510-7
pubmed: 25040643