ReviewBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Contraceptive Barriers and Psychological Well-Being After Repeat Induced Abortion: A Systematic Review.
Review in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRepeat induced abortion (defined as ≥two lifetime procedures) is becoming more common worldwide, yet its independent influence on women's psychological health remains contested, particularly in settings where access to modern contraception is restricted.
objectivesThis review sought to quantify the burden of depression, anxiety, stress, and generic quality of life (QoL) among women with repeat abortions and to determine how barriers to contraceptive access alter those outcomes.
methodsFollowing the preregistered PRISMA-2020 protocol, PubMed, Embase and Scopus were searched from inception to 31 June 2025.
resultsEight eligible studies comprising approximately 262,000 participants (individual sample sizes up to 79,609) revealed wide variation in psychological morbidity. Prevalence of clinically significant symptoms ranged from 5.5% to 24.8% for depression, 8.3% to 31.2% for anxiety, and 18.8% to 27% for perceived stress; frequent mental distress affected 12.3% of women in neutral policy environments but rose to 21.9% under highly restrictive abortion legislation. Having three or more abortions, compared with none or one, increased the odds of depressive symptoms by roughly one-third (pooled OR ≈ 1.37, 95% CI 1.13-1.67). Contextual factors exerted comparable or stronger effects: abortions sought for socioeconomic reasons elevated depression odds by 34%, unwanted disclosure of the abortion episode increased depressive scores by 0.62 standard deviations, and low partner support raised them by 0.67 SD. At the structural level, every standard deviation improvement in a state's reproductive rights index reduced frequent mental distress odds by 5%, whereas enactment of a near-total legal ban produced an absolute increase of 6.8 percentage points. QoL outcomes were less frequently reported; where measured, denied or heavily delayed abortions were associated with a 0.41-unit decrement on a seven-point life satisfaction scale.
conclusionsPsychological morbidity after abortion clusters where legal hostility, financial hardship, or interpersonal coercion constrain contraceptive autonomy while, in comparison, the mere number of procedures is a weaker predictor. Interventions that integrate stigma-free mental health support with confidential, affordable, and rights-based contraception are essential to protect well-being in women who experience repeat abortions.
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.