Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38336465›Full record

ArticleBMJ sexual & reproductive health2024

Patient and public involvement in abortion research: reflections from the Shaping Abortion for Change (SACHA) Study.

Rebecca Blaylock, Maria Lewandowska, Charlotte Kelly, Becky Gunn, Rebecca Meiksin, Rachel H Scott, Melissa J Palmer, Kaye Wellings, Patricia A Lohr, Rebecca S French and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ sexual & reproductive health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca BlaylockCentre for Reproductive Research & Communication, British Pregnancy Advisory Service, London, UK rebecca.blaylock1@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4317-1638
Maria LewandowskaDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3012-1132
Charlotte KellyPPI representatives, London, UK.
Becky GunnPPI representatives, London, UK.
Rebecca MeiksinDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Rachel H ScottDepartment of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0304-823X
Melissa J PalmerDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Kaye WellingsDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Patricia A LohrCentre for Reproductive Research & Communication, British Pregnancy Advisory Service, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1862-5730
Rebecca S FrenchDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1962-5022
The Sacha Study Team N/ALondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is limited within abortion-related research. Possible reasons for this include concerns about engaging with a stigmatised patient group who value confidentiality and may be reluctant to re-engage with services. Structural barriers, including limited funding for abortion-related research, also prevent researchers from creating meaningful PPI opportunities. Here, we describe lessons learnt on undertaking PPI as part of the Shaping Abortion for Change (SACHA) Study, which sought to create an evidence base to guide new directions in abortion care in Britain.Two approaches to PPI were used: involving patients and the public in the oversight of the research and its dissemination as lay advisors, and group meetings to obtain patients' views on interpretation of findings and recommendations. All participants observed the SACHA findings aligned with their own experiences of having an abortion in Britain. These priorities aligned closely with those identified in a separate expert stakeholder consultation undertaken as part of the SACHA Study. One additional priority which had not been identified during the research was identified by the PPI participants.We found abortion patients to be highly motivated to engage in the group meetings, and participation in them actively contributed to the destigmatisation of abortion by giving them a space to share their experiences. This may alleviate any ethical concerns about conducting research and PPI on abortion, including the assumption that revisiting an abortion experience will cause distress. We hope that our reflections are useful to others considering PPI in abortion-related research and service improvement.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationResearch PersonnelHumansabortion, inducedPatient ParticipationReproductive Healthresearch designSexual Health

Identifiers

PMID38336465
PMCPMC11041545
OpenAlexW4392730886

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.