ArticleBMJ global health2024
Why a good law is not always good enough: a global review of restrictions to supportive laws for sexual and reproductive health and rights.
Article in BMJ global health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Staying in a punishing place: online narratives about pregnancy and abortion in pre-liberalisation Ireland.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2025Article
- Navigating structural and personal dilemmas: a phenomenological study of midwives providing legal abortion care in Nampula, Mozambique.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laws and regulations provide the framework for implementing sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR)-related policies, programmes and services. They can promote the fulfilment of health and human rights; however, they may also limit the achievement of these goals. This study uses data collected under Sustainable Development Goal Indicator 5.6.2 to analyse SRHR-related laws and restrictions from 153 countries. Looking beyond the existence of supportive laws to assess the constellation of legal restrictions and contradictions such as criminalisation and plural legal systems provides a more nuanced understanding of factors involved in achieving full and equal access to SRHR.The interaction between restrictions and contradictions within the law disproportionately impacts some populations' health access and outcomes. Restrictions based on third-party authorisations and age are the most common restriction types, disproportionately impacting young women. Contraception, emergency contraception and abortion face the greatest number of restrictions, indicating a significant layering of barriers to family planning services. Further, plural legal systems commonly contradict guarantees of contraceptive services and emergency contraception. Our analyses suggest that one of the populations most affected by restrictions to SRH services as they appear in legal and regulatory frameworks is adolescent girls and young women in sub-Saharan Africa seeking abortion or contraceptive services.Study findings provide a critical starting point for advocacy to address legal barriers to SRH services and evidence for future policy and programming. For individual countries, this study can serve as a model for analysis of their own legal and regulatory frameworks to identify priority areas for reform efforts.
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.