Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36988125›Full record

ArticleSexual and reproductive health matters2023

Definitions, perspectives, and reasons for conscientious objection among healthcare workers, facility managers, and staff in South Africa: a qualitative study.

Makgoale Magwentshu, Rumbidzayi Chingwende, Abongile Jim, Justine van Rooyen, Helen Hajiyiannis, Nalini Naidoo, Neil Orr, Jamie Menzel, Erin Pearson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sexual and reproductive health matters, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Makgoale MagwentshuSenior Health Systems Advisor, Ipas South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Rumbidzayi ChingwendeProgram Manager, Ipas South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Abongile JimResearch, Monitoring and Evaluation Advisor, Ipas South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Justine van RooyenResearch, Monitoring and Evaluation Advisor, Ipas South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Helen HajiyiannisPrinciple Researcher, Centre for AIDS Development, Research and Evaluation, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Nalini NaidooSenior Researcher, Centre for AIDS Development, Research and Evaluation, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Neil OrrSenior Researcher, Centre for AIDS Development, Research and Evaluation, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Jamie MenzelResearch, Monitoring and Evaluation Advisor, Ipas, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Erin PearsonAssociate Director of Learning and Innovation, Ipas, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6056-1454
Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa · ZAUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conscientious objection (CO) on the part of healthcare providers is a growing threat to safe abortion access. In South Africa, evidence suggests that this legal clause may be manipulated as a justification for public-sector healthcare providers to exempt themselves from their duties to provide essential reproductive health services as required by national laws and protocols. This qualitative study improves our understanding of the definitions, perspectives, and use of CO among providers, staff, and facility managers in South Africa, and CO's effect on public-sector abortion availability. Using 18 focus group discussions and 23 in-depth interviews, we examined CO attitudes and behaviours of staff from health facilities that provide abortion care in Gauteng, Limpopo, KwaZulu-Natal, and Eastern Cape Provinces. We find that CO is invoked for a variety of reasons, some unrelated to the legal basis for objection. There have been progressive shifts in attitudes towards abortion over time, but stigma against women and girls who seek abortion remains substantial among staff at facilities providing abortion. Providers who offer abortion services also report high levels of discrimination and isolation from colleagues. Such factors, combined with operational barriers to offering quality abortion care (such as lack of training support or financial incentives) and lack of clarity on CO definitions and procedures, may incentivise some providers to invoke CO inappropriately. Dissemination of national guidelines on CO should be prioritised to reduce ambiguity, and interventions addressing abortion stigma should be considered for all facility staff to safeguard abortion availability in South Africa.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansPregnancyQualitative ResearchSouth Africaabortionconscientious objectionhealth provider attitudesSouth Africastigma

Identifiers

PMID36988125
PMCPMC10062214
OpenAlexW4361301416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.