ArticlePerspectives on sexual and reproductive health2026
How Are Healthcare Providers Conscientiously Objecting to Abortion in Australia? A Qualitative Study.
Article in Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health, 2026. 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
Abstract
introductionResearchers have done limited empirical work to explore how healthcare providers are claiming conscientious objection to abortion care in Australia. Without this research, we cannot assess if existing mechanisms to regulate conscientious objection meet the needs of abortion seekers, abortion providers, and healthcare providers who conscientiously object to abortion care. METHODOLOGY: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 41 interest-holders (including healthcare providers who provided or conscientiously objected to abortion care) across Australia about conscientious objection to abortion care and its regulation. We analyzed the data using framework analysis.
resultsWe identified four themes describing how healthcare providers were claiming conscientious objection to abortion care. First, claims existed on a spectrum from "partial provision" to "refusal without referral." When healthcare providers refused to provide an abortion, they did not always refer the abortion seeker to a willing provider or service. Second, claims of conscientious objection could change over time. Third, the relationship between religion and conscientious objection was not necessarily direct. Finally, some healthcare providers refused to provide abortion for reasons other than conscience.
conclusionThe findings demonstrated that conscientious objection provisions provided a flexible mechanism for healthcare providers to opt-out of providing abortion care at different times, in different contexts, and for different reasons (including reasons other than conscience). Education and guidelines may improve healthcare providers' understandings and interpretations of conscientious objection provisions. Destigmatizing interventions may also reduce the number of healthcare providers who refuse to participate in abortion care for conscience-based and non-conscience-based reasons.
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.