Chemlal Sonia, Russo Giuliano
Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Queen Mary University of London, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner street, London, E1 2AB, UK.
BMC Womens Health. 2019 Apr 8;19(1):55. doi: 10.1186/s12905-019-0751-0.
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.
限制性堕胎法律是不安全堕胎的最重要单一决定因素,不安全堕胎是一个重大但可预防的全球健康问题。虽然已对该现象的程度进行了综述,但迄今为止尚无研究分析在有合法替代方案的情况下,女性为何会求助于非正规部门提供者的证据。本研究对堕胎合法地区非正规部门堕胎的定性文献进行了系统综述。
我们使用PRISMA指南在2018年1月至2月期间搜索了PubMed、科学网、ScienceDirect和谷歌学术数据库。根据预先确定的纳入和排除标准,对2794篇英文和法文文献进行了资格筛选。纳入了调查在堕胎合法地区女性选择在非正规部门堕胎原因的文章。总共确定了16篇文章符合本综述的要求。研究结果按照PRISMA指南进行报告。
该综述强调了女性求助于非正规部门的多种原因,据报道,在提供合法堕胎服务的国家,在合法医疗设施之外进行堕胎是一种普遍且常态化的做法。女性列举了在非正规部门堕胎的一系列原因;这些原因包括担心受到工作人员的虐待、漫长的等候名单、高昂的费用、无法满足规定、隐私担忧以及对堕胎合法性或何处可获得安全合法堕胎服务缺乏认识。不安全堕胎不仅涉及医疗和身体安全,还涉及社会和经济安全。
尽管堕胎法律有所放宽,但在许多国家,使用非正规部门堕胎服务是一种普遍且常态化的做法。虽然非正规部门堕胎本身并非本质上不安全,但在非法环境下进行这种做法会增加女性无法获得必要信息或受到惩罚的可能性。本研究揭示了女性选择在正规医疗环境之外堕胎的多种原因以及她们在合法背景下获得堕胎服务所面临的问题,为未来的研究和政策提供了证据基础。