ArticleSexual and reproductive health matters2025
Abortion learning mechanisms for nurses and midwives: a scoping review of evidence.
Article in Sexual and reproductive health matters, 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.
- Perceptions of Abortion and Sexual and Reproductive Health in Chilean Medical and Midwifery Education: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Policy to practice: Translating "non-directive" pre-abortion counselling from legal stipulation to healthcare encounters.Women's health (London, England)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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Access to safe, affordable, and supported abortion care is a crucial component of reproductive justice and human rights. Abortion seekers consider nurses and midwives to be more supportive than other health professionals. Nurses and midwives have long been recommended providers of comprehensive abortion care, including second trimester care. This iterative scoping review aimed to explore the evidence on abortion learning mechanisms available to nurses and midwives and what can be improved about abortion training. Using the Arksey and O'Malley (Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1): 19-32) and Levac et al. (Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1): 69) scoping review frameworks, four databases were searched, resulting in 879 articles published in English from 01.01.2010 to 01.08.2024. The authors included 43 studies and identified five learning mechanisms. The evidence is presented under three themes: (1) the adequacy of abortion learning mechanisms for nurses and midwives, (2) listening to nurses and midwives' experiences, and (3) barriers to abortion training. This review found that in almost all legal and practice contexts, abortion training may be de-prioritised and hard to access because of institutional barriers, especially in centres of education. In conclusion, there is a low investment in abortion training for nurses and midwives. Policy-makers, health care systems, and educators should consider ways to continuously instil nurses and midwives with skills, confidence, and social authority to provide person-centred abortion care to combat harmful bias and mitigate the risk of reproductive coercion.
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.