Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32143665›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

Approaches, barriers, and facilitators to abortion-related work in U.S. health departments: perspectives of maternal and child heath and family planning professionals.

Nancy F Berglas, Erin Wingo, Katie Woodruff, Sarah C M Roberts

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Nancy F BerglasDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco, 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100, Oakland, CA, 94612, USA. nancy.berglas@ucsf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5310-4848
Erin WingoDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco, 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100, Oakland, CA, 94612, USA.
Katie WoodruffDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco, 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100, Oakland, CA, 94612, USA.
Sarah C M RobertsDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco, 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100, Oakland, CA, 94612, USA.

Funding

Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation 4010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPublic health agencies in the United States have engaged in abortion-related activities for nearly 50 years. Prior research indicates that, while most state health departments engage in some abortion-related work, their efforts reflect what is required by law rather than the breadth of core public health activities. In contrast, local health departments appear to engage in abortion-related activities less often but, when they do, initiate a broader range of activities.

methodsThis study aimed to: 1) describe the abortion-related activities undertaken by maternal and child health (MCH) and family planning professionals in state and local health departments; 2) understand how health departments approach their programmatic work on abortion, and 3) examine the facilitators and barriers to whether and how abortion work is implemented. Between November 2017 and June 2018, we conducted key informant interviews with 29 professionals working in 22 state and local health departments across the U.S. Interview data were thematically coded and analyzed using an iterative approach.

resultsMCH and family planning professionals described a range of abortion-related activities undertaken within their health departments. We identified three approaches to this work: those mandated strictly by law or policy; those initiated when mandated by law but informed by public health principles (e.g., scientific accuracy, expert engagement, lack of bias, promoting access to care) in implementation; and those initiated by professionals within the department to meet identified needs. More state health departments engaged in activities when mandated, and more local health departments initiated activities based on identified needs. Key barriers and facilitators included political climate, funding opportunities and restrictions, and departmental leadership.

conclusionsAlthough state health departments are tasked with implementing legally-required abortion-related activities, some agencies bring public health principles to their mandated work. Efforts are needed to engage public health professionals in developing and implementing best practices around engaging in abortion-related activities.

Indexed as

Abortion, LegalHealth Services AccessibilityPublic Health AdministrationFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaternal-Child Health ServicesPregnancyQualitative ResearchUnited StatesAbortionGovernment agenciesHealth policyPublic health

Identifiers

PMID32143665
PMCPMC7060598

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.