Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30964860›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

Experiences of women who travel for abortion: A mixed methods systematic review.

Jill Barr-Walker, Ruvani T Jayaweera, Ana Maria Ramirez, Caitlin Gerdts

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Abortion access barriers shared in "r/abortion" afterSexual and reproductive health matters · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Pricing of medication abortion in the United States, 2021-2023.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2024
    Article
  17. Making sense of the economics of abortion in the United States.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2024
    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

4 authors.

Jill Barr-WalkerZSFG Library, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8448-1184
Ruvani T JayaweeraIbis Reproductive Health, Oakland, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0609-9892
Ana Maria RamirezIbis Reproductive Health, Oakland, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8240-505X
Caitlin GerdtsIbis Reproductive Health, Oakland, California, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo systematically review the literature on women's experiences traveling for abortion and assess how this concept has been explored and operationalized, with a focus on travel distance, cost, delays, and other barriers to receiving services.

backgroundIncreasing limitations on abortion providers and access to care have increased the necessity of travel for abortion services around the world. No systematic examination of women's experiences traveling for abortion has been conducted; this mixed-methods review provides a summary of the qualitative and quantitative literature on this topic.

methodsA systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Popline, and Google Scholar in July 2016 and updated in March 2017 (PROSPERO registration # CRD42016046007). We included original research studies that described women's experiences traveling for abortion. Two reviewers independently performed article screening, data extraction and determination of final inclusion for analysis. Critical appraisal was conducted using CASP, STROBE, and MMAT checklists.

resultsWe included 59 publications: 46 quantitative studies, 12 qualitative studies, and 1 mixed-methods study. Most studies were published in the last five years, relied on data from the US, and discussed travel as a secondary outcome of interest. In quantitative studies, travel was primarily conceptualized and measured as road or straight-line distance to abortion provider, though some studies also incorporated measures of burdens related to travel, such as financial cost, childcare needs, and unwanted disclosure of their abortion status to others. Qualitative studies explored regional disparities in access to abortion care, with a focus on the burdens related to travel, the impact of travel on abortion method choice, and women's reasons for travel. Studies generally were of high quality, though many studies lacked information on participant recruitment or consideration of potential biases.

conclusionsStandardized measurements of travel, including burdens associated with travel and more nuanced considerations of travel costs, should be implemented in order to facilitate comparison across studies. More research is needed to explore and accurately capture different dimensions of the burden of travel for abortion services on women's lives.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityAbortion, InducedFemaleHumansMedical TourismPregnancyTravel

Identifiers

PMID30964860
PMCPMC6456165

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.