ReviewReproductive health2022
The impact of provider restrictions on abortion-related outcomes: a synthesis of legal and health evidence.
Review in Reproductive health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- "One's life becomes even more miserable when we hear all those hurtful words". A mixed methods systematic review of disrespect and abuse in abortion care.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2025Pooled it
- Restrictive abortion policy climate is associated with increased depression symptoms among women in the United States: Findings from a 25-year longitudinal study.SSM. Mental health · 2026Article
- Medical-Legal Partnerships for women in the United States: a systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Drivers of care and outcomes for people facing fetal conditions in the United States: a conceptual framework.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025Review
- Assessing facility capacity to provide safe abortion and post-abortion care in Liberia: a 2021 signal function survey across 48 public health facilities.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Outcomes of delivery in patients with diagnosed life-limiting fetal condition and evaluation of perinatal palliative care program: a retrospective review of palliative care service over 7 years.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
- The values attributed by physicians and nurses to abortion in Brazil.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2025Article
- Developing and validating an abortion care quality metric for facility and out-of-facility settings: an observational cohort study in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Nigeria.EClinicalMedicine · 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
- Health Care Disparities in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension.Clinics in chest medicine · 2023Review
- Abortion providers in the United States: expanding beyond obstetrics and gynecology.AJOG global reports · 2023Article
- Reproductive Health Services in Abortion-Providing Clinics: A Scoping Review of Provision and Policy Contexts.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's HealthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Many components of abortion care in early pregnancy can safely be provided on an outpatient basis by mid-level providers or by pregnant people themselves. Yet, some states impose non-evidence-based provider restrictions, understood as legal or regulatory restrictions on who may provide or manage all or some aspects of abortion care. These restrictions are inconsistent with the World Health Organization's support for the optimization of the roles of various health workers, and do not usually reflect evidence-based determinations of who can provide abortion. As a matter of international human rights law, states should ensure that the regulation of abortion is evidence-based and proportionate, and disproportionate impacts must be remedied. Furthermore, states are obliged take steps to ensure women do not have to undergo unsafe abortion, to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality, and to effectively protect women and girls from the physical and mental risks associated with unsafe abortion. States must revise their laws to ensure this. Where laws restrict those with the training and competence to provide from participating in abortion care, they are prima facie arbitrary and disproportionate and thus in need of reform. This review, developed by experts in reproductive health, law, policy, and human rights, examined the impact of provider restrictions on people seeking abortion, and medical professionals. The evidence from this review suggests that provider restrictions have negative implications for access to quality abortion, contributing inter alia to delays and recourse to unsafe abortion. A human rights-based approach to abortion regulation would require the removal of overly restrictive provider restrictions. The review provides evidence that speaks to possible routes for regulatory reform by expanding the health workforce involved in abortion-related care, as well as expanding health workers' roles, both of which could improve timely access to first trimester surgical and medical abortion, reduce costs, save time, and reduce the need for travel.
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.