ArticlePloS one2021
History and scientific background on the economics of abortion.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundApproximately one quarter of all pregnancies globally end in abortion, making it one of the most common gynecological practices worldwide. Despite the high incidence of abortion around the globe, the synthesis of known economic outcomes of abortion care and policies is lacking. Using data from a systematic scoping review, we synthesized the literature on the economics of abortion at the microeconomic, mesoeconomic, and mesoeconomic levels and presented the results in a collection of studies. This article describes the history and scientific background for collection, presents the scoping review framework, and discusses the value of this knowledge base. 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 outcomes: costs, impacts, benefits, and/or value of abortion-related care or policies. Our searches yielded 19,653 unique items, of which 365 items were included in our final inventory. Studies most often reported costs (n = 262), followed by impacts (n = 140), benefits (n = 58), and values (n = 40). Approximately one quarter (89/365) of studies contained information on the secondary outcome on stigma. Economic factors can lead to a delay in abortion care-seeking and can restrict health systems from adequately meeting the demand for abortion services. Provision of post-abortion care (PAC) services requires more resources then safe abortion services. Lack of insurance or public funding for abortion services can increase the cost of services and the overall economic impact on individuals both seeking and providing care.
conclusionsConsistent economic themes emerge from research on abortion, though evidence gaps remain that need to be addressed through more standardized methods and consideration to framing of abortion issues in economics terms. Given the highly charged political nature of abortion around the world, it is imperative that researchers continue to build the evidence base on economic outcomes of abortion services and regulations.
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.