Global and Women's Health, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 4, 553 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
School of Social Science, The University of Queensland, Forgan Smith Building, St Lucia, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023 Sep 7;23(1):646. doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-05902-0.
Abortion stigma involves the stereotyping of, discrimination against, and delegitimization of those who seek and provide abortion. Experiences of abortion care are shaped by stigma at the meso (e.g., lack of local providers) and macro (e.g., abortion regulations) levels. Yet abortion stigma and quality of care are often examined separately. This study sought to articulate the impact of abortion stigma on quality of care in the context of healthcare interactions. It did so by characterizing the features of stigmatizing and non-stigmatizing care in the context of macro-level stigma and other structural factors that influence abortion-seeking experiences, including the coronavirus pandemic's influence on the health system.
This qualitative study comprised in-depth interviews with people who sought abortion across Australia between March 2020 and November 2022, recruited through social media and flyers in clinics. Thematic analysis drew on concepts of micro, meso, and macro stigma and person-centered care. We developed typologies of the interactions between abortion seekers and healthcare workers by analytically grouping together negative and positive experiences to characterize features of stigmatizing and and non-stigmatizing care in the context of macro-level influences.
We interviewed 24 abortion seekers and developed five typologies of stigmatizing care: creating barriers; judging; ignoring emotional and information needs; making assumptions; and minimizing interactions. There are five corresponding positive typologies. Macro-level factors, from abortion regulations to rural and pandemic-related health system pressures, contributed to poor experiences in care.
The positive experiences in this study illustrate how a lack of stigma enables patient-centered care. The negative experiences reflect the interrelationship between stigmatizing beliefs among healthcare workers, macro-level (policy and regulatory) abortion stigma, and structural health service limitations exacerbated during the pandemic. Interventions are needed to reduce stigmatizing interactions between abortion seekers and healthcare workers, and should also consider macro-level factors that influence the behaviors of healthcare workers and experiences of abortion seekers. Without addressing stigma at multiple levels, equitable access to high-quality abortion care will be difficult to achieve. Efforts to integrate stigma reduction into quality improvement have relevance for maternal and reproductive health services globally.
堕胎污名涉及对寻求和提供堕胎的人进行刻板印象、歧视和合法化。堕胎护理的体验受到中观(例如,缺乏当地提供者)和宏观(例如,堕胎法规)层面的污名的影响。然而,堕胎污名和护理质量通常是分开研究的。本研究旨在在医疗保健互动的背景下阐明堕胎污名对护理质量的影响。它通过在宏观层面的污名和其他影响堕胎寻求体验的结构因素(包括大流行对卫生系统的影响)的背景下,描述污名化和非污名化护理的特征来做到这一点。
本定性研究包括对 2020 年 3 月至 2022 年 11 月期间在澳大利亚各地寻求堕胎的 24 人进行深入访谈,通过社交媒体和诊所传单招募。主题分析借鉴了微观、中观和宏观污名以及以患者为中心的护理概念。我们通过分析负面和积极的经验来对堕胎寻求者和医疗保健工作者之间的互动进行分组,以在宏观层面影响的背景下对污名化和非污名化护理的特征进行分类。
我们采访了 24 名堕胎寻求者,并提出了五种污名化护理类型:制造障碍;评判;忽视情感和信息需求;做出假设;和最小化互动。有五个对应的积极类型。从堕胎法规到农村和与大流行相关的卫生系统压力等宏观层面的因素,导致护理体验不佳。
本研究中的积极体验说明了缺乏污名如何能够实现以患者为中心的护理。负面体验反映了医疗保健工作者之间的污名化信念、宏观层面(政策和监管)的堕胎污名以及大流行期间加剧的结构性卫生服务限制之间的相互关系。需要采取干预措施来减少堕胎寻求者和医疗保健工作者之间的污名化互动,并且还应该考虑影响医疗保健工作者行为和堕胎寻求者体验的宏观层面因素。如果不在多个层面上解决污名问题,就难以实现公平获得高质量的堕胎护理。将减少污名化纳入质量改进的努力对于全球孕产妇和生殖健康服务具有相关性。