ArticleWomen's health (London, England)
How can patient experience of abortion care be improved? Evidence from the SACHA study.
Article in Women's health (London, England). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differences in pain, bleeding, and satisfaction during medical abortion at very early gestations.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Trial
- "It's Not a One Size Fits All": Service Users' Views on How Service Structure Shapes Quality of Abortion Care in Britain. Findings from the SACHA Study.Studies in family planning · 2026Article
- Early Pregnancy Termination with Mifepristone and Misoprostol: Concurrent vs. 48-Hour Interval Administration in a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- "I'm Pregnant, What Do I Do?": Exploring How People Having Abortions in Britain Find and Use Online Sources of Information.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2025Article
- Mapping the journey: enhancing abortion care in Uganda's health systems.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundModels of abortion care have changed significantly in the last decade, most markedly during the COVID-19 pandemic, when home management of early medical abortion with telemedical support was approved in Britain.
objectiveOur study aimed to examine women's satisfaction with abortion care and their suggestions for improvements.
designQualitative, in-depth, semi-structured interviews.
methodsA purposive sample of 48 women with recent experience of abortion was recruited between July 2021 and August 2022 from independent sector and National Health Service abortion services in Scotland, Wales and England. Interviews were conducted by phone or via video call. Women were asked about their abortion experience and for suggestions for any improvements that could be made along their patient journey - from help-seeking, the initial consultation, referral, treatment, to aftercare. Data were analyzed using the Framework Method.
resultsParticipants were aged 16-43 years; 39 had had a medical abortion, 8 a surgical abortion, and 1 both. The majority were satisfied with their clinical care. The supportive, kind and non-judgmental attitudes of abortion providers were highly valued, as was the convenience afforded by remotely supported home management of medical abortion. Suggestions for improvement across the patient journey centred around the need for timely care; greater correspondence between expectations and reality; the importance of choice; and the need for greater personal and emotional support.
conclusionRecent changes in models of care present both opportunities and challenges for quality of care. The perspectives of patients highlight further opportunities for improving care and support. The principles of timely care, choice, management of expectations, and emotional support should inform further service configuration.
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.