ArticlePloS one2025
Induced abortion in Iran, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, the law and the diverging attitude of medical and health science students.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Gender differences in attitudes towards abortion: a cross-sectional study from Türkiye.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Parallel paths: abortion access restrictions in the USA and Iran.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe topic of induced abortion has been a subject of extensive debate among various moral and religious frameworks and continues to pose significant challenges within the domains of medical ethics and policy formulation. In the context of Iran, an Islamic republic, the approach to induced abortion has been notably influenced by historical, social, and political dynamics. Following the implementation of the 'Rejuvenation of the Population and Protection of the Family Law (RPPF)' in 2021, access to induced abortion and contraceptive measures has been markedly restricted as a response to concerns surrounding population decline.
objectiveThis study aims to assess the attitudes of Iranian medical and health science students toward induced abortion as future executives of health programs.
methodsThis cross-sectional study administered a structured questionnaire for self-completion to medical and health science students of Tehran University of Medical Sciences, including medical students, obstetrics and gynecology residents, and nursing and midwifery students. The scoring of responses was between ‒12 and + 12, with the score ranging from 0 to positive, 12 showing an attitude negative to induced abortion, and the score below zero to ‒12 reflecting a positive attitude toward induced abortion.
resultsA total of 237 participants were involved in the study, with 52% being female, and 60% originally from cities other than Tehran. The median (min, max) of the total score of the attitude toward induced abortion was ‒5.0 (12,10). The mean score varied by the age of the respondents, with ‒4.0 (‒12, 10) for those aged above 30 years compared to ‒5.0 (‒12,10) for those aged below 30 years (P-value = 0.043). The score was 0.0 (‒12,10) for married compared to ‒6.0 (‒12,10) among single participants (P-value < 0.001). The score for participants who agreed with RPPF was 0.0 (‒12,10), compared to a more positive attitude of ‒8.0 (‒12,9) for participants who disagreed (P-value < 0.001).
conclusionIranian medical and health science students support induced abortion before 16 weeks of gestation. The attitudes of medical students who are future providers of health care and implementers of RPPF and other health laws are, therefore, at variance with current laws and policies.
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.