Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34743705›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2021

It's a small bit of advice, but actually on the day, made such a difference…: perceptions of quality in abortion care in England and Wales.

Katherine C Whitehouse, Rebecca Blaylock, Shelly Makleff, Patricia A Lohr

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

4 authors.

Katherine C WhitehouseCentre for Reproductive Research & Communication, BPAS, 30-31 Furnival Street, London, EC4A 1JQ, UK. kate.whitehouse@bpas.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3283-3803
Rebecca BlaylockCentre for Reproductive Research & Communication, BPAS, 30-31 Furnival Street, London, EC4A 1JQ, UK.
Shelly MakleffSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Patricia A LohrCentre for Reproductive Research & Communication, BPAS, 30-31 Furnival Street, London, EC4A 1JQ, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality of care (QOC) is increasingly identified as an important contributor to healthcare outcomes, however little agreement exists on what constitutes quality in abortion care or the recommended indicators from the service-user perspective. Our study aimed to explore perceptions and experiences of abortion QOC in England and Wales.

methodsWe performed in-depth interviews (via phone or in-person) with participants who had an abortion at a nationwide independent sector provider in the previous 6 months. We explored their experiences of the abortion service at each point in the care pathway, their perspectives on what contributed to and detracted from the experience meeting their definitions of quality, and their reflections on different aspects of QOC. We used content analysis to generate themes.

resultsFrom December 2018 to July 2019, we conducted 24 interviews. Ten participants had a surgical and 14 had a medical abortion. Seventeen (71%) were treated in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and 7 (29%) beyond that, with an average gestational age of 10 weeks + 5 days (range 5-23 + 6). We identified 4 major themes that contributed to participant's perception of high quality care: (1) interpersonal interactions with staff or other patients, (2) being informed and prepared, (3) participation and choices in care and (4) accessibility. Nearly all participants identified interpersonal interactions with staff as an important contributor to quality with positive interactions often cited as the best part of their abortion experience and negative interactions as the worst. For information and preparation, participant described not only the importance of being well prepared, but how incongruencies between information and the actual experience detracted from quality. Participants said that making choices about their care, for example, method of abortion, was a positive contributor. Finally, participants identified access to care, specifically in relation to waiting times and travel, as an important aspect of QOC.

conclusionsParticipants situated quality in abortion care in 4 domains: interpersonal aspects of care, information and preparation, choices, and accessibility. Indicators identified can be used to develop standard metrics to ensure care meets service-user needs.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedHealth Services AccessibilityEnglandFemaleHumansInfantPerceptionPregnancyQualitative ResearchWalesAbortionHealth services researchQualitative researchQuality improvementQuality of careTermination of pregnancy

Identifiers

PMID34743705
PMCPMC8574046

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.