Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31615501›Full record

ArticleBMC women's health2019

Experiences with pain of early medical abortion: qualitative results from Nepal, South Africa, and Vietnam.

Daniel Grossman, Sarah Raifman, Tshegofatso Bessenaar, Lan Dung Duong, Anand Tamang, Monica V Dragoman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC women's health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Daniel GrossmanAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, USA. Daniel.Grossman@UCSF.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-3221-9368
Sarah RaifmanAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Tshegofatso BessenaarIbis Reproductive Health, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Lan Dung DuongNational Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NHOG), Hanoi, Vietnam.
Anand TamangCenter for Environment Health and Population Activities (CREHPA), Kathmandu, Nepal.
Monica V DragomanDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research, WHO, UNFP/UNDP/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Geneva, Switzerland.
Gynuity Health Projects · USIbis Reproductive Health · ZAMinistry of Health and Population · NPReproductive Science Center · USVietnam National Children's Hospital · VN

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical abortion (MA) has become an increasingly popular choice for women even where surgical abortion services are available. Pain is often cited by women as one of the worst aspects of the MA experience, yet we know little about women's experience with pain management during the process, particularly in low resource settings. The aim of this study is to better understand women's experiences of pain with MA and strategies for improving quality of care.

methodsThis qualitative study was conducted as part of a three-arm randomized, controlled trial in Nepal, Vietnam, and South Africa to investigate the effect of prophylactic pain management on pain during MA through 63 days' gestation. We purposively sampled seven parous and seven nulliparous women with a range of reported maximum pain levels from each country, totaling 42 participants. Thematic content analysis focused on MA pain experiences and management of pain compared to menstruation, labor, and previous abortions.

resultsMA is relatively less painful compared to giving birth and relatively more painful than menstruation, based on four factors: pain intensity, duration, associated symptoms and side effects, and response to pain medications. We identified four types of pain trajectories: minimal overall pain, brief intense pain, intermittent pain, and constant pain. Compared to previous abortion experiences, MA pain was less extreme (but sometimes longer in duration), more private, and less frightening. There were no distinct trends in pain trajectories by treatment group, parity, or country. Methods of coping with pain in MA and menstruation are similar in each respective country context, and use of analgesics was relatively uncommon. The majority of respondents reported that counseling about pain management before the abortion and support during the abortion process helped ease their pain and emotional stress.

conclusionsPain management during MA is increasingly essential to ensuring quality abortion care in light of the growing proportion of abortions completed with medication around the world. Incorporating a discussion about pain expectations and pain management strategies into pre-MA counseling and providing access to information and support during the MA process could improve the quality of care and experiences of MA patients.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613000017729 , registered January 8, 2013.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedAdultFemaleHumansNepalPain ManagementPregnancyProcedural PainQualitative ResearchRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSouth AfricaVietnamYoung AdultMedical abortionNepalPainSouth AfricaVietnam

Identifiers

PMID31615501
PMCPMC6794877
OpenAlexW2980468762

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.