Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41372964›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2025

Structural barriers to medically indicated abortion in Germany: A qualitative study of provider perspectives.

Amelie Kolandt, Susanne Michl, Mirjam Faissner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Amelie KolandtInstitute of the History of Medicine and Ethics in Medicine, Charité - University Medicine Berlin, Thielallee 71, Berlin, 14195, Germany. amelie.kolandt@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-1917-8157
Susanne MichlInstitute of the History of Medicine and Ethics in Medicine, Charité - University Medicine Berlin, Thielallee 71, Berlin, 14195, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8387-2434
Mirjam FaissnerInstitute of the History of Medicine and Ethics in Medicine, Charité - University Medicine Berlin, Thielallee 71, Berlin, 14195, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9635-7850

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Germany, to perform an abortion after 14 weeks of gestation, physicians are legally required to provide a medical indication due to a serious risk to the pregnant person’s life or health. This study explores legal, institutional, and societal factors influencing abortion care in Germany from the perspective of abortion providers and counsellors.

methodsWe conducted 42 semi-structured expert interviews with gynaecologists and abortion counsellors across Germany. Data were analysed using Mayring’s qualitative content analysis with a mixed inductive–deductive approach.

resultsIn our analysis, we identified four overarching themes that influence care for medically indicated abortions in Germany: (1) Varying Availability and the Right to Refuse: Abortion services in Germany are unevenly distributed, with notable urban–rural divides. This restricts procedural options and leads to delays. The experts raised concerns over institutional refusals by entire hospital departments or publicly funded facilities. (2) Legal Regulation and Stigmatisation: Although medically indicated abortions are legal, their regulation under the Criminal Code fosters a sense of criminality among providers. Stigma can negatively affect professional support for patients in their decision either to terminate or continue a pregnancy. (3) Lack of Training and Standardisation: Abortion care is underrepresented in medical education and obstetric training, with few opportunities to acquire the necessary skills. The lack of national clinical guidelines further contributes to inconsistent interpretations of the medical indication and intransparency of processes. (4) Intersectional Aspects: Systemic inequities disproportionately affect structurally marginalised groups—including those living in rural areas, individuals with migration histories, language barriers, mental health conditions, or prior trauma. Experts described how opaque medical indication criteria, stigma, and lack of trauma-sensitive care result in delayed, inaccessible, or denied care.

conclusionIn Germany, abortions on medical grounds are complicated by legal ambiguities, fragmented care provision, and frequent use of the right to refuse. While the right to refuse protects providers, its opaque application can exacerbate inequalities and delay access to care. Stigma – legal, institutional, and interpersonal – remains a major barrier, reinforced by the Criminal Code, inadequate training, and generational differences among healthcare professionals. Future legal frameworks should guarantee equal access to care irrespective of social and medical factors. National clinical guidelines on abortion beyond 14 weeks’ gestation and bereavement care are urgently required.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedAttitude of Health PersonnelHealth Services AccessibilityFemaleGermanyGynecologistsHumansPregnancyQualitative ResearchSocial StigmaAbortion accessAbortion lawAbortion stigmaGermanyHealthcare barriersMedically indicated abortionPatient-centred careReproductive rights

Identifiers

PMID41372964
PMCPMC12709803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.