ArticlePloS one2019
Women's abortion seeking behavior under restrictive abortion laws in Mexico.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How, when and where? A systematic review on abortion decision making in legally restricted settings in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean.BMC women's health · 2022Pooled it
- Mexico-Based Accompaniment Collectives for Abortion in the US After Dobbs.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- 'How nice would it be!': synergies between pro-choice female physicians and abortion acompañantes in Mexico.Reproductive health · 2025Article
- "I'm Pregnant, What Do I Do?": Exploring How People Having Abortions in Britain Find and Use Online Sources of Information.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2025Article
- Developing a comprehensive abortion prevention program for couples based on I-change model: study protocol for a mixed method research.Reproductive health · 2024Article
- Accompaniment on the edge: What can the US learn from Latin America about contested abortion care?PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- The impact of criminalisation on abortion-related outcomes: a synthesis of legal and health evidence.BMJ global health · 2022Review
- Travelling for abortion services in Mexico 2016-2019: community-level contexts of Mexico City public abortion clients.BMJ sexual & reproductive health · 2022Article
- "I just have to hope that this abortion should go well": Perceptions, fears, and experiences of abortion clients in Nigeria.PloS one · 2022Article
- Factors influencing abortion decisions, delays, and experiences with abortion accompaniment in Mexico among women living outside Mexico City: results from a cross-sectional study.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2021Article
- Pathways to care: Factors predicting women's access to clinic versus pharmacy-based medication abortion in Ghana.Women's health (London, England)Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abortion is regulated in Mexico at the state level, and it is permitted under certain criteria in all 32 states, except in Mexico City where first-trimester abortion is decriminalized. Yet, more than a million abortions occur in Mexico each year. But most terminations occurring outside of Mexico City are clandestine and unsafe due to profound stigma against the procedure, lack of trained providers, lack of knowledge of where to find a safe abortion and poor knowledge of the laws. While this situation is moderated by the increasing use of misoprostol, a relatively safe method of abortion, the safety of the procedure cannot be assured in restrictive legal contexts. The purpose of this study is to explore women's experiences with induced abortion in three federal entities with different legal contexts, and whether abortion seeking behavior and experiences differ across these settings. The study was carried out in three states, representing three different degrees of restrictiveness of abortion legislation. Queretaro with the "most restrictive" law, Tabasco with a "moderately restrictive" law, and Mexico state with the "least restrictive" law. We hypothesize that women living in more restrictive states will resort to the use of more unsafe and risky methods and providers for their abortion than their counterparts in less restrictive states. Women who recently obtained abortions were selected through snowball sampling and qualitative data were collected from them using semi-structured indepth interviews. Data collection took place between mid-2014 and mid-2015, with a final sample size N = 60 (20 from each state). Various themes involved in the process of abortion seeking behavior were developed from the IDIs and examined here: women's knowledge of the abortion law in their state, reasons for having an abortion; the methods and providers used and women's positive and negative experiences with abortion methods and providers used. Our results indicate that abortion safety is not associated with the restrictiveness of abortion legislation. Findings show that there is a new pattern of abortion service provision in Mexico, with misoprostol, a relatively safe and easy to use method, playing an important role. Nevertheless, while access to misoprostol tends to increase the safety of abortion, the improvement is moderated by women and their informants (relatives, friends and partners) not having accurate information on how to safely self-induce an abortion with misoprostol. On the other hand, some women manage to have safe abortion in illegal setting by going to Mexico City or with the support of NGOs knowlegeable on abortion. Findings demonstrate the importance of decriminalization of abortion, but meanwhile, harm reduction strategies, including promotion of accurate information about self-use of misoprostol where abortion is legally restricted will result in safe abortion.
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.