Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23259660›Full record

ReviewReproductive health2012

Latin American women's experiences with medical abortion in settings where abortion is legally restricted.

Nina Zamberlin, Mariana Romero, Silvina Ramos

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Reproductive health, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. "Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2021
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nina ZamberlinCenter for the Study of State and Society (CEDES) (External Researcher) and Adolescent Health Foundation (FUSA), Buenos Aires, Argentina. ninazamberlin@yahoo.com.ar
Mariana Romero
Silvina Ramos
Center for the Study of State and Society · ARConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas · AR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Abortion is legally restricted in most of Latin America where 95% of the 4.4 million abortions performed annually are unsafe. Medical abortion (MA) refers to the use of a drug or a combination of drugs to terminate pregnancy. Mifepristone followed by misoprostol is the most effective and recommended regime. In settings where mifepristone is not available, misoprostol alone is used.Medical abortion has radically changed abortion practices worldwide, and particularly in legally restricted contexts. In Latin America women have been using misoprostol for self-induced home abortions for over two decades.This article summarizes the findings of a literature review on women's experiences with medical abortion in Latin American countries where voluntary abortion is illegal.Women's personal experiences with medical abortion are diverse and vary according to context, age, reproductive history, social and educational level, knowledge about medical abortion, and the physical, emotional, and social circumstances linked to the pregnancy. But most importantly, experiences are determined by whether or not women have the chance to access: 1) a medically supervised abortion in a clandestine clinic or 2) complete and accurate information on medical abortion. Other key factors are access to economic resources and emotional support.Women value the safety and effectiveness of MA as well as the privacy that it allows and the possibility of having their partner, a friend or a person of their choice nearby during the process. Women perceive MA as less painful, easier, safer, more practical, less expensive, more natural and less traumatic than other abortion methods. The fact that it is self-induced and that it avoids surgery are also pointed out as advantages. Main disadvantages identified by women are that MA is painful and takes time to complete. Other negatively evaluated aspects have to do with side effects, prolonged bleeding, the possibility that it might not be effective, and the fact that some women eventually need to seek medical care at a hospital where they might be sanctioned for having an abortion and even reported to the police.

Indexed as

Abortifacient AgentsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeMisoprostolAbortion, InducedChoice BehaviorFemaleHumansLatin AmericaAbortifacient AgentsMisoprostol

Identifiers

PMID23259660
PMCPMC3557184
OpenAlexW2098843376

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.