ReviewHealth and human rights2020
Regulating Conscientious Objection to Legal Abortion in Argentina: Taking into Consideration Its Uses and Consequences.
Review in Health and human rights, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Determinants of Access to Sexual and Reproductive Health for Adolescent Girls in Vulnerable Situations in Latin America.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Pooled it
- Progress in providing legal abortion services after law reform: A quantitative study in three provinces of Argentina.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Providers' experiences with abortion care: A scoping review.PloS one · 2024Article
- Definitions, perspectives, and reasons for conscientious objection among healthcare workers, facility managers, and staff in South Africa: a qualitative study.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2023Article
- 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
- Article
- Improving measures of access to legal abortion: A validation study triangulating multiple data sources to assess a global indicator.PloS one · 2023Article
- Identifying accurate pro-choice and pro-life identity labels in Spanish: Social media insights and implications for comparative survey research.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2022Article
- The Opinions of Specialists in Obstetrics and Gynecology on the Indications for Pregnancy Termination in Poland-A Preliminary Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Institutional objection to abortion: A mixed-methods narrative review.Women's health (London, England)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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Claims of conscientious objection (CO) have expanded in the health care field, particularly in relation to abortion services. In practice, CO is being used in ways beyond those originally imagined by liberalism, creating a number of barriers to abortion access. In Argentina, current CO regulation is lacking and insufficient. This issue was especially evident in the country's 2018 legislative debate on abortion law reform, during which CO took center stage. This paper presents a mixed-method study conducted in Argentina on the uses of CO in health facilities providing legal abortion services, with the goal of proposing specific regulatory language to address CO based not only on legal standards but also on empirical findings regarding CO in everyday reproductive health services. The research includes a review of literature and comparative law, a survey answered by 269 health professionals, and 11 in-depth interviews with stakeholders. The results from our survey and interviews indicate that Argentine health professionals who use CO to deny abortion are motivated by a combination of political, social, and personal factors, including a fear of stigmatization and potential legal issues. Furthermore, we find that the preeminent consequences of CO are delays in abortion services and conflicts within the health care team. The findings of this research allowed us to propose specific regulatory recommendations on CO, including limits and obligations, and suggestions for government and health system leaders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33390712PMC7762910What 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.