ReviewHealth and human rights2021
Toward Human Rights and Evidence-Based Legal Frameworks for (Self-Managed) Abortion: A Review of the Last Decade of Legal Reform.
Review in Health and human rights, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reparation, rights, and dissidence: a qualitative study of feminist advocacy for legal, safe, and free abortion in Ecuador.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2025Article
- Feasibility of medication abortion self-care service delivery in Ghana.Reproductive health · 2025Article
- [Women's rescuers network: Community support for self-managed abortion in Argentina].Salud colectiva · 2024Article
- "I wasn't sure it would work. I was just trying": an ethnographic study on the choice of abortion methods among young women in Kilifi County, Kenya, and Atlantique Department, Benin.Reproductive health · 2023Article
- Self-Managed Abortion in Africa: The Decriminalization Imperative in Regional Human Rights Standards.Health and human rights · 2023Article
- Policy surveillance for a global analysis of national abortion laws.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2022Article
- The Growing Importance of Self-Managed and Telemedicine Abortion in the United States: Medically Safe, but Legal Risk Remains.American journal of public health · 2022Article
- Self-managed abortion: Exploring synergies between institutional medical systems and autonomous health movements.Contraception · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the late 1980s, people have safely self-managed their abortions with medication, changing the landscape of abortion. This practice continues to evolve and expand and has been identified as a cause of decline in severe abortion-related morbidity and mortality. However, developments in medical abortion and self-management have yet to be reflected in the way abortion is regulated. Building on the need for evidence and human rights-based laws, this article explores developments in abortion laws from around the world between 2010 and 2020 to explore the extent to which they have contributed to an enabling environment for self-managed abortion. We focus on recent laws-those adopted in the past 10 years-for which we had access to information for analysis. We observe that laws in force still retain clinical settings and the involvement of medical professionals as the desirable circumstances for an abortion to take place and that even those that have liberalized access still retain some degree of criminalization for the pregnant person who carries out a self-managed abortion or for those who support the process. We conclude that there is enough evidence and support from international human rights standards to ground legal developments that enable self-managed abortion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34194213PMC8233026What 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.