ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2018
Medical termination of pregnancy service delivery in the context of decentralization: social and structural influences.
Article in International journal for equity in health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Abortion stigma among abortion providers in high-income countries: a mixed methods systematic review.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2025Pooled it
- Factors that affect the provision of medical abortion services in Australian primary care: a mixed methods systematic review.The Medical journal of Australia · 2025Pooled it
- Barriers and facilitators to women's access to sexual and reproductive health services in rural Australia: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Abortion learning mechanisms for nurses and midwives: a scoping review of evidence.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2025Article
- Experiences of abortion care in Australia: a qualitative study examining multiple dimensions of access.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Typologies of interactions between abortion seekers and healthcare workers in Australia: a qualitative study exploring the impact of stigma on quality of care.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- 'The tabloid test': a qualitative interview study on the function and purpose of termination of pregnancy review committees in Victoria, Australia.Reproductive health · 2023Article
- Barriers and enablers to nurse practitioner implementation of medication abortion in Canada: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2023Article
- A Virtual Community of Practice to Support Physician Uptake of a Novel Abortion Practice: Mixed Methods Case Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Article
- The Change in Attitudes Towards Abortion in Former West and East Germany After Reunification: A Latent Class Analysis and Implications for Abortion Access.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2020Article
- Challenges and Facilitators for Physicians and Medical Schools to Promote Social Accountability in Rural Communities: A Scoping Review and Thematic Analysis.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical termination of pregnancy (MToP) is a safe and acceptable abortion option. Depending on country context, MToP can be administered by general practitioners and mid-level healthcare providers in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy. Like other high-income countries, a range of social and structural barriers to MToP service provision exist in Australia. To counter some of these barriers, geographic decentralization of MToP was undertaken in rural Victoria, Australia, through training service providers about MToP to increase service delivery opportunities. The aim of this study was to investigate the factors that enabled and challenged the decentralization process.
methodsFace-to-face and telephone interviews were undertaken between April and June 2016 with a purposeful sample of six training providers and 13 general practitioners (GP) and nurse training participants. Study participants were asked about their perceptions of motivations, enablers and challenges to MToP provision. A published conceptual framework of synergies between decentralization and service delivery was used to analyse the study findings.
resultsThree key themes emerged from the study findings. First, the effort to decentralize MToP was primarily supported by motivations related to making service access more equitable as well as the willingness of training providers to devolve their informal power, in the form of MToP medical expertise, to training participants. Next, the enablers for MToP decentralization included changes in the regulatory environment relating to decriminalization of abortion and availability of required medication, formation of partnerships to deliver training, provision of MToP clinical resources and local collegial support. Finally, challenges to MToP decentralization were few but significant. These included a lack of a state-wide strategy for service provision, provider concerns about coping with service demand, and provider stigma in the form of perceived negative community or collegial attitudes. These were significant enough to create caution for GPs and nurses considering service provision.
conclusionsDecentralization concepts offer an innovative way for reframing and tackling issues associated with improving MToP service delivery. There is scope for more research about MToP decentralization in other country contexts. These findings are important for informing future rural MToP service expansion efforts that improve equity in service access.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.