Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35436888›Full record

ReviewReproductive health2022

The impact of provider restrictions on abortion-related outcomes: a synthesis of legal and health evidence.

Fiona de Londras, Amanda Cleeve, Maria I Rodriguez, Alana Farrell, Magdalena Furgalska, Antonella F Lavelanet

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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 Health
    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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Fiona de LondrasBirmingham Law School, University of Birmingham, B15 2TT, Birmingham, UK. f.delondras@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3555-6311
Amanda CleeveWomen's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Maria I RodriguezDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Alana FarrellBirmingham Law School, University of Birmingham, B15 2TT, Birmingham, UK.
Magdalena FurgalskaYork Law School, University of York, York, UK.
Antonella F LavelanetUNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
University of Birmingham · GBKarolinska Institutet · SEOregon Health & Science University · USUniversity of York · GBWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

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

Abortion, InducedAbortion, LegalFemaleHuman RightsHumansMalePregnancyAbortionAbortion law and policyHuman rightsLaw and policyProvider restrictionsReproductive health

Identifiers

PMID35436888
PMCPMC9014563
OpenAlexW4224032627

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.