Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39695605›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

Methodological report of a cross-sectional survey of abortion-related knowledge, attitudes and practices amongst health professionals in Britain, strategies adopted and lessons learned: evidence from the SACHA Study.

R S French, M J Palmer, O McCarthy, N Salaria, R Meiksin, J Shawe, M Lewandowska, R Scott, K Wellings, SACHA Study Team

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Observational
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

10 authors.

R S FrenchLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. Rebecca.French@lshtm.ac.uk.
M J PalmerLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
O McCarthyLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
N SalariaLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
R MeiksinLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
J ShaweUniversity of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
M LewandowskaLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
R ScottLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
K WellingsLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
SACHA Study Team

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR129529
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost surveys examining health professionals' knowledge, attitudes and practices around abortion have used convenience samples and have targeted doctors. Our goal in the SACHA Study, drawing on evidence-based strategies to maximise response rates, was to achieve a representative sample of a wider range of health professionals, working in general practice, maternity services, pharmacies, sexual and reproductive health (SRH) clinics and specialist abortion services in Britain, to explore the knowledge, attitudes and experience of abortion care and views on future models of delivery.

methodsA cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey of midwives, doctors, nurses and pharmacists in England, Scotland and Wales was undertaken between November, 2021 and July, 2022. We used a stratified cluster sampling approach to select a random sample of sites and all eligible staff within those services were asked to respond to the survey. Evidence-based strategies to maximise completion rates were adopted, including postal delivery of the one-page questionnaire with personal letter of invitation and a stamped address envelope for return, inclusion of an unconditional voucher and follow-up.

resultsOverall, 147 of the 314 (46.8%) health service sites randomly selected took part in the survey. Reasons for non-participation included local Research and Development (R&D) Department non-response, lack of resources or insufficient time to support or approve the study, lack of interest in or perceived relevance of the topic and insufficient capacity to take part, exacerbated by work demands during the COVID epidemic. Of the 1370 questionnaires sent to eligible identified participants within these services, 771 were completed and returned (56.3%). At the service level the highest proportion of returns was from SRH clinics (81.0%) and the lowest from general practice (32.4%). In relation to profession, returns were highest amongst midwives (69.6%) and lowest amongst pharmacists (36.5%).

conclusionsObtaining information about health professional knowledge, attitudes and practices is key to guide service development and policy and to identify gaps in training and service provision in abortion. Despite our attempts to gain a representative sample of health professionals, the challenges we experienced limited the representativeness of the sample, despite the use of an evidence-based strategy.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedPregnancySurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomAbortionBritainGeneral practiceHealth professionalMidwiferyPharmacySamplingSexual and reproductive healthSurvey

Identifiers

PMID39695605
PMCPMC11654077

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.