UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneve, Switzerland.
UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneve, Switzerland
BMJ Open. 2022 Nov 17;12(11):e063870. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063870.
We conducted a scoping review to identify the types, volume and characteristics of available evidence and analyse the gaps in the knowledge base for evaluated interventions to reduce contraception and abortion stigma.
We conducted a search of five electronic databases to identify articles published between January 2000 and January 2022, and explored the websites of relevant organisations and grey literature databases for unpublished and non-commercial reports. Articles were assessed for eligibility, and data were extracted.
We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and PsycINFO.
Articles included were: (1) published between January 2000 and January 2022, (2) written in English, (3) reports of the evaluation of an intervention designed to reduce contraceptive and/or abortion stigma, (4) used any type of study design and (5) conducted in any country context.
Included studies were charted according to study location, study aim, study design, type of contraceptive method(s), study population, type of stigma, and intervention approach.
Some 18 articles were included in the final analysis (11 quantitative, 6 qualitative and 1 mixed methods). Fourteen of the studies focused exclusively on abortion stigma, and two studies focused on contraception stigma only; while two studies considered both. A majority of the studies aimed to address intrapersonal stigma. We found no interventions designed to address stigma at the structural level. In terms of intervention approaches, seven were categorised as education/training/skills building, five as counselling/peer support, three as contact and three as media.
There is a dearth of evaluations of interventions to reduce contraception and abortion stigma. Investment in implementation science is necessary to develop the evidence base and inform the development of effective interventions, and use existing stigma scales to evaluate effectiveness. This scoping review can serve as a precursor to systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of approaches.
我们进行了范围综述,以确定现有证据的类型、数量和特征,并分析评估减少避孕和堕胎污名干预措施的知识库中的差距。
我们搜索了五个电子数据库,以确定 2000 年 1 月至 2022 年 1 月期间发表的文章,并探索了相关组织的网站和灰色文献数据库,以获取未发表和非商业报告。评估文章的合格性,并提取数据。
我们搜索了 MEDLINE、PubMed、Embase、Web of Science 和 PsycINFO。
包括以下文章:(1)发表于 2000 年 1 月至 2022 年 1 月期间,(2)用英文书写,(3)报告旨在减少避孕和/或堕胎污名的干预措施的评估,(4)使用任何类型的研究设计,(5)在任何国家背景下进行。
根据研究地点、研究目的、研究设计、避孕方法类型、研究人群、污名类型和干预方法对纳入的研究进行图表绘制。
最终分析包括 18 篇文章(11 篇定量、6 篇定性和 1 篇混合方法)。其中 14 项研究专门针对堕胎污名,2 项研究仅关注避孕污名,2 项研究则同时考虑两者。大多数研究旨在解决人际污名问题。我们没有发现旨在解决结构性污名的干预措施。就干预方法而言,7 项被归类为教育/培训/技能建设,5 项为咨询/同伴支持,3 项为接触,3 项为媒体。
减少避孕和堕胎污名的干预措施评估相对较少。需要投资于实施科学,以发展证据基础并为有效干预措施的制定提供信息,并使用现有的污名量表来评估效果。本范围综述可以作为评估方法有效性的系统综述的前奏。