Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27570793›Full record

ArticleAJOB empirical bioethics

"Prefacing the Script" as an Ethical Response to State-Mandated Abortion Counseling.

Mara Buchbinder, Dragana Lassiter, Rebecca Mercier, Amy Bryant, Anne Drapkin Lyerly

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AJOB empirical bioethics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mara BuchbinderDepartment of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 333 S. Columbia St., 341A MacNider Hall CB 7240, Chapel Hill, NC 27599.
Dragana LassiterDepartment of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 301 Alumni Building, CB 3115, Chapel Hill, NC 27510.
Rebecca MercierDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jefferson Medical College, 833 Chestnut Street, 1st Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19107.
Amy BryantDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 4002 Old Clinic Building, CB 7570, Chapel Hill, NC 27514.
Anne Drapkin LyerlyDepartment of Social Medicine, Center for Bioethics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 333 S. Columbia St. 333 MacNider Hall CB 7240, Chapel Hill, NC 27599.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USJefferson College · US

Funding

North Carolina Translational & Clinical Sciences Institute (NC TraCS)KL2TR001109 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BUSE, JOHN BERNARD, CAREY, TIMOTHY S · 2013 to 2017
$5.7M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001109
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaws governing abortion provision are proliferating throughout the United States, yet little is known about how these laws affect providers. We investigated the experiences of abortion providers in North Carolina practicing under the 2011 Women's Right to Know Act, which mandates that women receive counseling with specific, state-prescribed information at least 24 hours prior to an abortion. We focus here on a subset of the data to examine one strategy by which providers worked to minimize moral conflicts generated by the counseling procedure. Drawing on Erving Goffman's work on language and social interaction, we highlight how providers communicated moral objections and layered meanings through a practice that we call

methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with 31 physicians, nurses, physician assistants, and clinic managers who provide abortion care in North Carolina. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using an inductive, iterative analytic approach, which included reading for context, interpretive memo-writing, and focused coding.

resultsRoughly half of the participants (14/31) reported that they or the clinicians who performed the counseling in their institution routinely prefaced the counseling script with qualifiers, disclaimers, and apologies that clarified their relationship to the state-mandated content. We identified three performative functions of this practice: 1) enacting a frame shift from a medical to a legal interaction, 2) distancing the speaker from the authorial voice of the counseling script, and 3) creating emotional alignment.

conclusionsPrefacing state-mandated abortion counseling scripts constitutes a practical strategy providers use to balance the obligation to comply with state law with personal and professional responsibilities to provide tailored care, emotional support, and serve the patient's best interests. Our findings suggest that language constitutes a powerful resource for navigating and minimizing moral conflicts in healthcare.

Indexed as

abortionapologiesclinical ethicscommunicationlawmoral distressqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID27570793
PMCPMC4999071
OpenAlexW2167996073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.