Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33600471›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

The economics of abortion and its links with stigma: A secondary analysis from a scoping review on the economics of abortion.

Brittany Moore, Cheri Poss, Ernestina Coast, Samantha R Lattof, Yana van der Meulen Rodgers

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Technology for Adults with Intellectual Disability: Secondary Analysis of a Scoping Review.Canadian journal of occupational therapy. Revue canadienne d'ergotherapie · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Brittany MooreIpas, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5972-5183
Cheri PossIpas, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Ernestina CoastDepartment of International Development, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8703-307X
Samantha R LattofDepartment of International Development, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0934-1488
Yana van der Meulen RodgersDepartment of Labor Studies and Employment Relations, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7669-2857
London School of Economics and Political Science · GBRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough abortions are a common aspect of people's reproductive lives, the economic implications of abortion and the stigmas that surround abortion are poorly understood. This article provides an analysis of secondary data from a scoping review on the economic impact of abortion to understand the intersections between stigma and economics outcomes at the microeconomic (i.e., abortion seekers and their households), mesoeconomic (i.e., communities and health systems), and macroeconomic (i.e., societies and nation states) levels. METHODS AND

findingsWe conducted a scoping review using the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews. Studies reporting on qualitative and/or quantitative data from any world region were considered. For inclusion, studies must have examined one of the following microeconomic, mesoeconomic, or macroeconomic outcomes: costs, benefits, impacts, and/or value of abortion-related care or abortion policies. Our searches yielded 19,653 items, of which 365 items were included in our final inventory. As a secondary outcome, every article in the final inventory was screened for abortion-related stigma, discrimination, and exclusion. One quarter (89/365) of the included studies contained information on stigma, though only 32 studies included stigma findings directly tied to economic outcomes. Studies most frequently reported stigma's links with costs (n = 24), followed by economic impact (n = 11) and economic benefit (n = 1). Abortion stigma can prevent women from obtaining correct information about abortion services and laws, which can lead to unnecessary increases in costs of care and sizeable delays in care. Women who are unable to confide in and rely on their social support network are less likely to have adequate financial resources to access abortion.

conclusionsAbortion stigma has a clear impact on women seeking abortion or post-abortion care at each level. Programmatic interventions and policies should consider how stigma affects delays to care, access to accurate information, and available social and financial support, all of which have economic and health implications.

Indexed as

Social StigmaAbortion, InducedFemaleHealth PolicyHumansPregnancySocioeconomic Factors

Identifiers

PMID33600471
PMCPMC7891754
OpenAlexW3131911242

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.