ArticleBMJ global health2025
The influence of the expanded Global Gag Rule on Malawi's sexual and reproductive health and rights landscape: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- US Presidential Party switches are mirrored in global maternal mortality.BMJ global health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Global Gag Rule (GGR) prohibits non-governmental organisations receiving US international family planning funding from using these funds to provide or refer for abortion services or advocate for abortion law liberalisation. In 2017, President Trump renamed the policy Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) and expanded it to all US global health assistance funding. On 28 January 2021, President Biden revoked PLGHA. Limited research explores the expanded GGR's influence when revoked in countries dependent on US global health assistance. We examined how PLGHA influenced the sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) landscape of Malawi during its enforcement and since its revocation by President Biden in January 2021.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews between July and August 2021 with 17 current and past recipients of US global health assistance and civil society organisations working in SRHR in Malawi.
resultsWhile PLGHA was in effect, participants observed the stalling of a liberalised abortion bill in Parliament, enhancement of anti-abortion attitudes and hindrance of national sovereignty in Malawi. In some cases, participants reported that over-implementation of the policy restricted legal access to post-abortion and contraceptive care. The Biden administration's revocation of PLGHA seemed to exemplify support of SRHR globally but did not reverse anti-abortion sentiment emboldened by prior enforcement of the policy. The threat of PLGHA being reinstated by a future US president was associated with hesitation among participants to invest in public health programmes and advocacy efforts.
conclusionParticipants felt that PLGHA's enforcement was associated with impaired abortion law reform, prevented organisations from providing safe post-abortion care and reinforced abortion stigma in Malawi. Participants felt these impacts endured even after the policy's revocation in January 2021. A permanent repeal of the GGR would allow organisations and the Malawi government to fully invest in public health interventions promoting SRHR.
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.