Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31366662›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Economics of abortion: a scoping review protocol.

Ernestina Coast, Samantha R Lattof, Yana van der Meulen Rodgers, Brittany Moore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Ernestina CoastInternational Development, London School of Economics, London, UK e.coast@lse.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8703-307X
Samantha R LattofInternational Development, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0934-1488
Yana van der Meulen RodgersWomen's and Gender Studies, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Brittany MooreScientific and Technical Divison, IPAS, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAbortion is a common feature of people's reproductive lives. However, the economic implications of abortion and policies affecting abortion provision are poorly understood. This scoping review aims to systematically review social science literature for studies that have investigated the impact of abortion care (ie, un/safe abortion, post-abortion care) or abortion policies on economic outcomes at the micro-levels (ie, abortion seekers and their households), meso-levels (ie, communities and health systems) and macro-levels (ie, societies and nation states). Informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline for protocols, this protocol details the scoping review's methodological and analytical approaches. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will utilise the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) tool. Studies reporting on qualitative and/or quantitative data from any world region will be considered. For inclusion, studies must examine one of the following economic outcomes at the micro-levels, meso-levels and/or macro-levels: costs, benefits, impacts and/or value of abortion care or abortion policies. Searches will be conducted in eight electronic databases. We will conduct the searches and application of inclusion/exclusion criteria according to the PRISMA-ScR flow approach. No assessments of items' quality will be made, as the purpose of this scoping review is to synthesise and describe the coverage of the evidence. After extracting all data, we will inductively develop an economic framework around the economics of abortion. The analysis will synthesise the evidence base and identify knowledge gaps on the costs and benefits of abortion to stakeholders at various levels. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required, as primary data will not be collected in this study. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and condensed summaries for key stakeholders and partners in the field.

Indexed as

Abortion, LegalFemaleHealth PolicyHealth Services AccessibilityHumansPregnancyResearch DesignScoping Reviews as Topicabortioneconomicshealth economicsprotocols and guidelinesreproductive healthscoping review

Identifiers

PMID31366662
PMCPMC6678010

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.