ArticlePloS one2026
Status, barriers and facilitators of comprehensive abortion care services in rural India: A multicenter mixed-methods study protocol.
Article in PloS one, 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnsafe abortion continues to be a significant cause of avoidable maternal morbidity and mortality especially in low- and middle-income countries. Despite India's permissive Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, operational gaps continue to prevent women from accessing safe abortion services. There is still a dearth of multi-centric mixed-methods research from rural areas on women's experiences, provider perspectives, and facility readiness. This study aims to assess the status of comprehensive abortion care (CAC) in rural India by evaluating public-sector facility preparedness, provider experiences, care-seeking pathways, and identifying key barriers and facilitators as per CAC guidelines (2023). The findings will guide the development of a preliminary implementation approach (Model 0+) as well as future phases focused on testing, adaptation, and scale up to strengthen CAC availability, quality, and uptake.
methodsThis study employs a convergent mixed-methods design across six geographically varied rural blocks in India (North, South, East, West, Central, and Northeast). There will be two participant groups: married women aged 18-49 years who are current, previous, or potential abortion service users, and public health system stakeholders involved in Comprehensive Abortion Care (CAC). A multistage cluster survey will enroll approximately 854 married women per site across 20 clusters. The qualitative component will comprise interviews with women who have had abortions in the last two years and healthcare practitioners, for a total of around 240 interviews. Additionally, 18 focus group discussions with Accredited Social Health Activists and Anganwadi Workers (three per site), will capture frontline worker's perspectives. Quantitative data will be collected using KoboCollect and analysed using STATA (or an equivalent statistical software). Qualitative data will undergo combined phenomenological and thematic analysis using NVivo or equivalent software. DISCUSSION: This study constitutes the first phase of a multi-stage implementation research programme. The study builds upon national CAC guidelines as a foundation of implementation of "Model 0" for abortion care and assesses their functioning in routine public-sector settings. Insights from women, frontline workers, and providers will inform development of a refined implementation strategy ("Model 0+") grounded in real-world contexts. This evidence-driven approach is expected to yield a practical, acceptable, and scalable model for subsequent piloting, adaptation, and wider health system uptake.
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.