ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2020
Medical technologies and abortion care in Eastern Uganda.
Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and factors associated with unsafe abortion among married women admitted to the gynecology ward at Lira regional referral hospital in Lira City Northern Uganda.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Article
- A narrative review of challenges related to healthcare worker rights, roles and responsibilities in the provision of sexual and reproductive services in health facilities.BMJ global health · 2023Review
- Power, policy and abortion care in Uganda.Health policy and planning · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Manual Vacuum Aspirators (MVA), Dilation and Curettage (D&C), and medical abortifacients (Misoprostol, Mifepristone and Divabo) are available in clinical settings that offer abortion and post-abortion care in Uganda. While these technologies imply appropriate and safe abortion care, legal and policy ambiguities impact health outcomes. In this article, we draw on an ethnography of abortion care delivery practice conducted in one district in Eastern Uganda between August 2018 and March 2019, with data from interviews and observations, both of interactions and during quality of care improvement and training meetings. We illuminate how, in the context of a financialized healthcare system and legal restrictions, the meanings and use of medical technologies and abortion care vary across different health facility types. In public health facilities, health workers become state agents in the control of women's bodies. In private health facilities, they become transgressors, who use medical technologies to help women attain termination surreptitiously. Health workers offset risks associated with any involvement in termination, such that pecuniary interests dominate their motivation. Normalized and disciplinary power enact and reproduce unsafe and risky conditions, leading to poor abortion care outcomes. We illustrate the mechanisms of domination and tactics of resistance in abortion care, and expose conditions upon which unsafe and risky outcomes are contingent.
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.