Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28288649›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2017

Medical termination of pregnancy in general practice in Australia: a descriptive-interpretive qualitative study.

Angela J Dawson, Rachel Nicolls, Deborah Bateson, Anna Doab, Jane Estoesta, Ann Brassil, Elizabeth A Sullivan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  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. 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

7 authors.

Angela J DawsonThe Australian Centre for Public and Population Health Research, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, P.O. Box 123, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia. angela.dawson@uts.edu.au.
Rachel NicollsThe Australian Centre for Public and Population Health Research, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, P.O. Box 123, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Deborah BatesonThe Sydney Medical School, Discipline, Gynaecology and Neonatology, University of Sydney and Family Planning New South Wales, 28-336 Liverpool Road, Ashfield, NSW, 2131, Australia.
Anna DoabThe Australian Centre for Public and Population Health Research, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, P.O. Box 123, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Jane EstoestaEvaluation and Research Operations, Family Planning New South Wales, 28-336 Liverpool Road, Ashfield, NSW, 2131, Australia.
Ann BrassilThe Australian Centre for Public and Population Health Research, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney and Family Planning New South Wales, 28-336 Liverpool Road, Ashfield, NSW, 2131, Australia.
Elizabeth A SullivanThe Australian Centre for Public and Population Health Research, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, P.O. Box 123, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAustralian Government approval in 2012 for the use of mifepristone and misoprostol for medical termination of pregnancy (MTOP) allows general practitioners (GPs) to provide early gestation abortion in primary care settings. However, uptake of the MTOP provision by GPs appears to be low and the reasons for this have been unclear. This study investigated the provision of and referral for MTOP by GPs.

methodsWe undertook descriptive-interpretive qualitative research and selected participants for diversity using a matrix. Twenty-eight semi-structured interviews and one focus group (N = 4), were conducted with 32 GPs (8 MTOP providers, 24 non MTOP providers) in New South Wales, Australia. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. A framework to examine access to abortion services was used to develop the interview questions and emergent themes identified thematically.

resultsThree main themes emerged: scope of practice; MTOP demand, care and referral; and workforce needs. Many GPs saw abortion as beyond the scope of their practice (i.e. a service others provide in specialist private clinics). Some GPs had religious or moral objections; others regarded MTOP provision as complicated and difficult. While some GPs expressed interest in MTOP provision they were concerned about stigma and the impact it may have on perceptions of their practice and the views of colleagues. Despite a reported variance in demand most MTOP providers were busy but felt isolated. Difficulties in referral to a local public hospital in the case of complications or the provision of surgical abortion were noted.

conclusionsExploring the factors which affect access to MTOP in general practice settings provides insights to assist the future planning and delivery of reproductive health services. This research identifies the need for support to increase the number of MTOP GP providers and for GPs who are currently providing MTOP. Alongside these actions provision in the public sector is required. In addition, formalised referral pathways to the public sector are required to ensure timely care in the case of complications or the provision of surgical options. Leadership and coordination across the health sector is needed to facilitate integrated abortion care particularly for rural and low income women.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAbortifacient Agents, SteroidalAbortion, InducedAustraliaFemaleFocus GroupsFollow-Up StudiesGeneral PractitionersHumansMaleMifepristonePregnancyQualitative ResearchAbortifacient Agents, SteroidalMifepristoneGeneral practitionerMedical abortionMifepristoneMTOPPrimary health care

Identifiers

PMID28288649
PMCPMC5348908

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.