SynthesisGlobalization and health2020
Systematic review of early abortion services in low- and middle-income country primary care: potential for reverse innovation and application in the UK context.
Synthesis in Globalization and health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Healthcare professionals' and students' willingness to perform abortion: A systematic review and meta-analysis, 2014-2025.Women's health (London, England)Pooled it
- Which Aspects of Abortion Care Do Healthcare Practitioners in Britain Think Nurses/Midwives Should Provide? Findings From the SACHA Study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Observational
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of Brazilian physicians regarding abortion care: a nationwide cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The experiences of three women who underwent termination of pregnancy for medical reasons: a comparative methodological study using grounded theory analysis and interpretative phenomenological analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Reciprocity in global health: How successes from the global south can inform global health interventions in Canada and the U.S.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- The state of abortion services in five Pacific Island countries: a legislative analysis and scoping review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Innovation through telemedicine to improve medication abortion access in primary health centers: findings from a pilot study in Musanze District, Rwanda.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Attitudes towards the regulation and provision of abortion among healthcare professionals in Britain: cross-sectional survey data from the SACHA Study.BMJ sexual & reproductive health · 2025Article
- Article
- Revolution in abortion care? Perspectives of key informants on the importance of abortion method choice in the era of telemedicine.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2023Article
- Successes and challenges towards improving quality of primary health care services: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Saving more lives on time: Strategic policy implementation and financial inclusion for safe abortion in Indonesia during COVID-19 and beyond.Frontiers in global women's health · 2022Article
- Article
- Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the UK, according to the 1967 Abortion Act, all abortions must be approved by two doctors, reported to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), and be performed by doctors within licensed premises. Removing abortion from the criminal framework could permit new service delivery models. We explore service delivery models in primary care settings that can improve accessibility without negatively impacting the safety and efficiency of abortion services. Novel service delivery models are common in low-and-middle income countries (LMICs) due to resource constraints, and services are sometimes provided by trained, mid-level providers via "task-shifting". The aim of this study is to explore the quality of early abortion services provided in primary care of LMICs and explore the potential benefits of extending their application to the UK context.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL, and HMIC for studies published from September 1994 to February 2020, with search terms "nurses", "midwives", "general physicians", "early medical/surgical abortion". We included studies that examined the quality of abortion care in primary care settings of low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), and excluded studies in countries where abortion is illegal, and those of services provided by independent NGOs. We conducted a thematic analysis and narrative synthesis to identify indicators of quality care at structural, process and outcome levels of the Donabedian model.
resultsA total of 21 indicators under 8 subthemes were identified to examine the quality of service provision: law and policy, infrastructure, technical competency, information provision, client-provider interactions, ancillary services, complete abortions, client satisfaction. Our analysis suggests that structural, process and outcome indicators follow a mediation pathway of the Donabedian model. This review showed that providing early medical abortion in primary care services is safe and feasible and "task-shifting" to mid-level providers can effectively replace doctors in providing abortion.
conclusionThe way services are organised in LMICs, using a task-shifted and decentralised model, results in high quality services that should be considered for adoption in the UK. Collaboration with professional medical bodies and governmental departments is necessary to expand services from secondary to primary care.
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.