Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27010629›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2016

Women's Awareness and Knowledge of Abortion Laws: A Systematic Review.

Anisa R Assifi, Blair Berger, Özge Tunçalp, Rajat Khosla, Bela Ganatra

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Abortion Experiences and Perspectives Amongst Migrants and Refugees: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Does Abortion Liberalisation Accelerate Fertility Decline? A Worldwide Time-Series Analysis.European journal of population = Revue europeenne de demographie · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors.

Anisa R AssifiWHO Department of Reproductive Health and Research, including UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Blair BergerDepartment of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Özge TunçalpWHO Department of Reproductive Health and Research, including UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Rajat KhoslaWHO Department of Reproductive Health and Research, including UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Bela GanatraWHO Department of Reproductive Health and Research, including UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncorrect knowledge of laws may affect how women enter the health system or seek services, and it likely contributes to the disconnect between official laws and practical applications of the laws that influence women's access to safe, legal abortion services.

objectiveTo provide a synthesis of evidence of women's awareness and knowledge of the legal status of abortion in their country, and the accuracy of women's knowledge on specific legal grounds and restrictions outlined in a country's abortion law.

methodsA systematic search was carried for articles published between 1980-2015. Quantitative, mixed-method data collection, and objectives related to women's awareness or knowledge of the abortion law was included. Full texts were assessed, and data extraction done by a single reviewer. Final inclusion for analysis was assessed by two reviewers. The results were synthesised into tables, using narrative synthesis.

resultsOf the original 3,126 articles, and 16 hand searched citations, 24 studies were included for analysis. Women's correct general awareness and knowledge of the legal status was less than 50% in nine studies. In six studies, knowledge of legalization/liberalisation ranged between 32.3%-68.2%. Correct knowledge of abortion on the grounds of rape ranged from 12.8%-98%, while in the case of incest, ranged from 9.8%-64.5%. Abortion on the grounds of fetal impairment and gestational limits, varied widely from 7%-94% and 0%-89.5% respectively.

conclusionThis systematic review synthesizes literature on women's awareness and knowledge of the abortion law in their own context. The findings show that correct general awareness and knowledge of the abortion law and legal grounds and restrictions amongst women was limited, even in countries where the laws were liberal. Thus, interventions to disseminate accurate information on the legal context are necessary.

Indexed as

AwarenessKnowledgeAbortion, LegalFemaleHumans

Identifiers

PMID27010629
PMCPMC4807003

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.