ArticleReproductive health2023
In-country availability of medical abortion medicines: a description of the framework and methodology of the WHO landscape assessments.
Article in Reproductive health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors influencing abortion duration, bleeding volume, pain scores, and anxiety levels during medical abortion: a cross-sectional study.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- A descriptive summary of the WHO availability assessments of medical abortion medicines in eight African countries.Reproductive health · 2024Article
- Landscape assessment of the availability of medical abortion medicines in India.Reproductive health · 2024Article
- Strengthening regional commitment to ensuring access to medical abortion medicines in WHO's South-East Asia region: report of a participatory assessment and workshop.Reproductive health · 2024Article
- Availability of medical abortion medicines in eight countries: a descriptive analysis of key findings and opportunities.Reproductive health · 2023Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAvailability of quality-assured medical abortion medicines plays a crucial role in providing comprehensive abortion care. However, access to these medicines is still restricted for many abortion seekers. Increasing availability of affordable, quality-assured mifepristone and misoprostol is important to improve access to safe medical abortion services. Driven by the outcomes of a global consultation hosted by the World Health Organization and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency in 2018, we decided to holistically examine access to medical abortion medicines from supply to demand. The overarching principle of the national landscape assessments was to generate evidence to support policy dialog and policymaking that is contextual to the needs of the country. This paper aims to describe the framework and methodological approach used in the World Health Organization landscape assessments of medical abortion medicines at country-level.
methodsA country assessment protocol was developed to guide the methodology of the World Health Organization landscape assessments. The assessment protocol included adaptation of an existing availability framework, an online desk review and literature review for existing data available for the country of interest, country-level key informant interviews, and analysis of the data to identify barriers and opportunities to improve medical abortion availability.
conclusionThe availability framework and methodology will allow the identification of key barriers that limit readiness of medical abortion medicines, and the development of opportunities to overcome those barriers. The national landscape assessments will provide directions for future investments and offer guidance for policy and programming on medical abortion care.
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.