Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39754449›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2025

Informed consent and ethical issues pertaining to female sterilization-Scoping review.

Sharol Malekobane Maila, Camille Castelyn, Sumaiya Adam

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Informed consent and ethical issues pertaining to female sterilization-Scoping review.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Review
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

3 authors.

Sharol Malekobane MailaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Camille CastelynCentre for Ethics and Philosophy of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Sumaiya AdamDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8769-3273

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFemale sterilization, a safe, permanent method of contraception that blocks the fallopian tubes, has been in use since the 19th century. The procedure necessitates informed consent, a critical step that has been marred by reports of forced sterilization since World War II. These incidents often stem from inadequate consent processes where ethical principles are overlooked or deliberately flouted. The persistent issue of forced sterilization, primarily attributable to a flawed informed consent process, highlights significant ethical concerns.

objectivesThis scoping review aimed to identify the ethical challenges associated with the informed consent process for female sterilization, including instances of forced sterilization. SEARCH STRATEGY: The review employed a comprehensive electronic search across multiple databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ProQuest Central, targeting literature published in English between January 2000 and December 2021. The search strategy utilized key terms related to informed consent, ethical issues, and female sterilization, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) methodology for database search and screening. SELECTION CRITERIA: The search resulted in the inclusion of 55 published articles for this review. Studies were selected if they focused on informed consent for female sterilization and reported on forced or coerced sterilization involving mentally competent women aged 18 years and older. Exclusions were made for studies on women younger than 18 years, those related to emergency procedures, and non-English language publications. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A two-stage screening process was used to assess the relevance of the identified studies, with independent reviewers evaluating titles, abstracts, and full texts. Data were extracted using a predefined tool, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. The analysis focused on summarizing the ethical issues identified and recommendations for improving the consent process. MAIN

resultsThe review identified vulnerable populations, particularly women reliant on the state or government for health care, as being at higher risk of forced sterilization. Cases of sterilization without consent, under coercion, sedation, or through inducements/incentives have been reported. Recommendations from international obstetrics and gynecology societies, health organizations, human rights bodies, and local governments have been issued in an attempt to improve the consent process. Notably, the United States implemented a Medicaid consent form in the 1970s, which has yet to be revised, attracting significant criticism for some of its components. Meanwhile, low- and middle-income countries lack standardized tools to address complaints related to this issue.

conclusionThis review identifies persistent ethical challenges in the informed consent process for female sterilization globally, with forced sterilization disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations. The review underscores the urgent need for the development and implementation of standardized consent tools, with ongoing review, to protect women's autonomy and prevent unethical practices, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentSterilization, InvoluntarySterilization, ReproductiveCoercionFemaleHumansSterilization, Tubalcoerced sterilizationethicsfemale sterilizationforced sterilizationsinformed consentreproductive justice

Identifiers

PMID39754449
PMCPMC12093920

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.