Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jan 18;14(1):e076602.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076602.

Abortion stigma among abortion seekers, healthcare professionals and the public in high-income countries: A mixed-methods systematic review protocol

Marie Bernard #  1 , Jana Niemann #  2 , Laura Weinhold  1 , Dennis Jepsen  1 , Celine Miani  3 , Claudia Luck-Sikorski  4   5
Affiliations

Abortion stigma among abortion seekers, healthcare professionals and the public in high-income countries: A mixed-methods systematic review protocol

Marie Bernard et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Introduction: Abortion is a crucial sexual and reproductive right. However, the legal situation of pregnancy termination is rather heterogeneous across countries and regions. The political climate and cultural perception may result in abortion-related stigma. This mixed-methods systematic review protocol aims to detail the proposed methods for assessing the current state of research on abortion stigma in high-income countries from an abortion seeker, healthcare provider and public perspective.

Methods and analysis: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols guideline, we conducted a systematic literature search of peer-reviewed studies from high-income countries in relevant electronic databases: PubMed, CINHAL, PsycINFO, LIVIVO and Cochrane Library. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method studies that measured or examined abortion-related stigma in abortion seekers, healthcare professionals and the general public will be included. Assessment of risk of bias, data synthesis and qualitative meta-aggregation will be carried out.

Ethics and dissemination: The results of the systematic review will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences.

Keywords: REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE; SEXUAL MEDICINE; Stereotyping; Systematic Review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow chart. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Ross LJ. Reproductive justice as Intersectional feminist activism. Souls 2017;19:286–314. 10.1080/10999949.2017.1389634 - DOI
    1. WHO . Abortion care guideline. 2022. Available: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240039483
    1. Singh S, Remez L, Sedgh G, et al. . Abortion Worldwide2017: uneven progress and unequal access. New York. 2018. Available: https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/abortion-world...
    1. Footman K, Dessalegn B, Hayes G, et al. . Can universal health coverage eliminate unsafe abortion Sex Reprod Health Matters 2020;28:1848398. 10.1080/26410397.2020.1848398 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bearak J, Popinchalk A, Ganatra B, et al. . Unintended pregnancy and abortion by income, region, and the legal status of abortion: estimates from a comprehensive model for 1990–2019. Lancet Glob Health 2020;8:e1152–61. 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30315-6 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types