Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36638100›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Improving measures of access to legal abortion: A validation study triangulating multiple data sources to assess a global indicator.

Caitlin R Williams, Paula Vázquez, Carolina Nigri, Richard M Adanu, Delia A B Bandoh, Mabel Berrueta, Suchandrima Chakraborty, Jewel Gausman, Ernest Kenu, Nizamuddin Khan and 6 more

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

16 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Caitlin R WilliamsInstitute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS)), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Paula VázquezInstitute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS)), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Carolina NigriInstitute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS)), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Richard M AdanuDepartment of Population, Family, and Reproductive Health, University of Ghana School of Public Health, Accra, Ghana.
Delia A B BandohDepartment of Epidemiology and Disease Control, University of Ghana School of Public Health, Accra, Greater Accra, Ghana.
Mabel BerruetaInstitute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS)), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Suchandrima ChakrabortyPopulation Council, New Delhi, India.
Jewel GausmanDepartment of Global Health and Population, Women and Health Initiative, Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9880-2591
Ernest KenuDepartment of Epidemiology and Disease Control, University of Ghana School of Public Health, Accra, Greater Accra, Ghana.
Nizamuddin KhanPopulation Council, New Delhi, India.
Ana LangerDepartment of Global Health and Population, Women and Health Initiative, Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Magdalene A OdikroDepartment of Epidemiology and Disease Control, University of Ghana School of Public Health, Accra, Greater Accra, Ghana.
Sowmya RameshPopulation Council, New Delhi, India.
Niranjan SaggurtiPopulation Council, New Delhi, India.
Verónica PingrayInstitute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS)), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
R Rima JolivetDepartment of Global Health and Population, Women and Health Initiative, Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1440-4722
Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria · ARPopulation Council Institute · INUniversity of Ghana · GHHarvard University · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlobal mechanisms have been established to monitor and facilitate state accountability regarding the legal status of abortion. However, there is little evidence describing whether these mechanisms capture accurate data. Moreover, it is uncertain whether the "legal status of abortion" is a valid proxy measure for access to safe abortion, pursuant to the global goals of reducing preventable maternal mortality and advancing reproductive rights. Therefore, this study sought to assess the accuracy of reported monitoring data, and to determine whether evidence supports the consistent application of domestic law by health care professionals such that legality of abortion functions as a valid indicator of access. METHODS AND

findingsWe conducted a validation study using three countries as illustrative case examples: Argentina, Ghana, and India. We compared data reported by two global monitoring mechanisms (Countdown to 2030 and the Global Abortion Policies Database) against domestic source documents collected through in-depth policy review. We then surveyed health care professionals authorized to perform abortions about their knowledge of abortion law in their countries and their personal attitudes and practices regarding provision of legal abortion. We compared professionals' responses to the domestic legal frameworks described in the source documents to establish whether professionals consistently applied the law as written. This analysis revealed weaknesses in the criterion validity and construct validity of the "legal status of abortion" indicator. We detected discrepancies between data reported by the global monitoring and accountability mechanisms and the domestic policy reviews, even though all referenced the same source documents. Further, provider surveys unearthed important context-specific barriers to legal abortion not captured by the indicator, including conscientious objection and imposition of restrictions at the provider's discretion.

conclusionsTaken together, these findings denote weaknesses in the indicator "legal status of abortion" as a proxy for access to safe abortion, as well as inaccuracies in data reported to global monitoring mechanisms. This information provides important groundwork for strengthening indicators for monitoring access to abortion and for renewed advocacy to assure abortion rights worldwide.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedAbortion, LegalFemaleHealth PersonnelHealth PolicyHumansInformation SourcesPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID36638100
PMCPMC10045551
OpenAlexW4315884102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read108
identifiers read7
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.