Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26434646›Full record

ArticleContraception2016

Contraceptive care at the time of medical abortion: experiences of women and health professionals in a hospital or community sexual and reproductive health context.

Carrie Purcell, Sharon Cameron, Julia Lawton, Anna Glasier, Jeni Harden

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Contraception, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Women's Postabortion Contraceptive Preferences and Access to Family Planning Services in Mississippi.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health
    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

5 authors.

Carrie PurcellCentre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LN, United Kingdom. Electronic address: carrie.purcell@glasgow.ac.uk.
Sharon CameronMedical School, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LN, United Kingdom. Electronic address: sharon.cameron@ed.ac.uk.
Julia LawtonCentre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LN, United Kingdom. Electronic address: j.lawton@ed.ac.uk.
Anna GlasierMedical School, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LN, United Kingdom. Electronic address: anna.glasier@ed.ac.uk.
Jeni HardenCentre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LN, United Kingdom. Electronic address: jeni.harden@ed.ac.uk.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CZH/4/906
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine experiences of contraceptive care from the perspective of health professionals and women seeking abortion, in the contexts of hospital gynaecology departments and a specialist sexual and reproductive health centre (SRHC). MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with 46 women who had received contraceptive care at the time of medical abortion (gestation ≤9weeks) from one SRHC and two hospital gynaecology-department-based abortion clinics in Scotland. We also interviewed 25 health professionals (nurses and doctors) involved in abortion and contraceptive care at the same research sites. We analysed interview data thematically using an approach informed by the Framework method, and comparison was made between the two clinical contexts.

resultsMost women and health professionals felt that contraceptive counselling at abortion was acceptable and appropriate, if provided in a sensitive, nonjudgmental way. Participants framed contraceptive provision at abortion as significant primarily as a means of preventing subsequent unintended conceptions. Accounts of contraceptive decision making also presented tensions between the priorities of women and health professionals, around 'manoeuvring' women towards contraceptive uptake. Comparison between clinical contexts suggests that women's experiences may have been more positive in the SRHC setting.

conclusionsWhilst abortion may be a theoretically and practically convenient time to address contraception, it is by no means an easy time to do so and requires considerable effort and expertise to be managed effectively. Training for those providing contraceptive care at abortion should explicitly address potential conflicts between the priorities of health professionals and women seeking abortion. IMPLICATIONS: This paper offers unique insight into the detail of women and health professionals' experiences of addressing contraception at the time of medical abortion. The comparison between hospital and community SRHC contexts highlights best practise and areas for improvement relevant to a range of settings.

Indexed as

CounselingReproductive HealthAbortion, InducedAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelCommunity Health CentersContraceptionFemaleHealth PersonnelHospitalsHumansPregnancyPregnancy, UnplannedScotlandLong-acting reversible contraception (LARC)Medical abortionPostabortion contraceptionQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID26434646
PMCPMC4712046

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.