Health providers' reasons for participating in abortion care: a scoping review

Background: There is a global shortage of health providers in abortion care. Public discourse presents abortion providers as dangerous and greedy and links ‘conscience’ with refusal to participate. This may discourage provision. A scoping review of empirical evidence is needed to inform public perceptions of the reasons that health providers participate in abortion. Objective: The study aimed to identify what is known about health providers’ reasons for participating in abortion provision. Eligibility criteria: Studies were eligible if they included health providers’ reasons for participating in legal abortion provision. Only empirical studies were eligible for inclusion. Sources of evidence: We searched the following databases from January 2000 until January 2022: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ScienceDirect and Centre for Agricultural and Biosciences International Abstracts. Grey literature was also searched. Methods: Dual screening was conducted of both title/abstract and full-text articles. Health providers’ reasons for provision were extracted and grouped into preliminary categories based on the existing research. These categories were revised by all authors until they sufficiently reflected the extracted data. Results: From 3251 records retrieved, 68 studies were included. In descending order, reasons for participating in abortion were as follows: supporting women’s choices and advocating for women’s rights (76%); being professionally committed to participating in abortion (50%); aligning with personal, religious or moral values (39%); finding provision satisfying and important (33%); being influenced by workplace exposure or support (19%); responding to the community needs for abortion services (14%) and participating for practical and lifestyle reasons (8%). Conclusion: Abortion providers participated in abortion for a range of reasons. Reasons were mainly focused on supporting women’s choices and rights; providing professional health care; and providing services that aligned with the provider’s own personal, religious or moral values. The findings provided no evidence to support negative portrayals of abortion providers present in public discourse. Like conscientious objectors, abortion providers can also be motivated by conscience

Institutional objection to abortion: a mixed-methods narrative review

Institutional objection (IO) occurs when institutions providing health care claim objector status and refuse to provide legally permissible health services such as abortion. IO may be regulated by sources including law, ethical codes and policies (including State and local/institutional policies). We conducted a mixed-methods narrative review of the empirical evidence exploring IO to abortion provision globally, to inform areas for further research. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Global Health (CAB Abstracts), ScienceDirect and Scopus were searched in August 2021 using keywords including ‘conscientious objection’, ‘faith-based organizations’, ‘religious hospitals’ and ‘abortion’. Eligible research focused on clinicians’ attitudes and experiences of IO to abortion. The 28 studies included in the review were from nine countries: United States (19), Chile (2), Turkey (1), Argentina (1), Australia (1), Colombia (1), Ghana (1), Poland (1) and South Africa (1). The analysis demonstrated that IO was claimed in a range of countries, despite different legislative and policy frameworks. There was strong evidence from the United States that clinicians in religious healthcare institutions were less likely to provide abortions and abortion referrals, and that training of future abortion providers was negatively affected by IO. Qualitative evidence from other countries showed that IO was claimed by secular as well as religious institutions, and individual conscientious objection could be used as a mechanism for imposing IO. Further research is needed to explore whether IO is morally justified, how decisions are made to claim IO, and on what grounds. Finally, appropriate models for regulating IO are needed to ensure the protection of women’s access to abortion. Such models could be informed by those used to regulate IO in other contexts, such as voluntary assisted dying

Producing an evidence‐based treatment information website in partnership with people affected by multiple sclerosis

Background and Aims: In earlier work, we identified that people affected by multiple sclerosis (MS) can have difficulty finding online treatment information that is up to date, trustworthy, understandable, and applicable to personal circumstances, but does not provoke confusion or negative emotional consequences. The objective was to develop online consumer summaries of MS treatment evidence (derived from Cochrane Reviews) that respond to identified treatment information needs of people affected by MS. Methods: A 2-phase mixed-methods project, conducted in partnership with consumers and an MS organisation. Phase 1 included review panels with consumers (Australians affected by MS) and health professionals to test paper-based treatment summaries before development, and pilot testing of the website. Phase 2 involved an online survey after website launch. Results: Eighty-three participants (85% affected by MS) took part. Phase 1 participants strongly endorsed key review summary components, including layering information, and additional sections to aid personal applicability. Participants additionally suggested questions for health professionals. Participants across both phases were receptive to the idea of being provided with Cochrane Review summaries online but were seeking other types of evidence and information, such as personal experiences and the latest experimental treatments, which could not be provided. While the small survey sample size (n = 58) limits application of the results to a broader population, the website was viewed favourably, as a useful, understandable, and trustworthy information source. Conclusion: We describe a partnership approach to developing online evidence-based treatment information, underpinned by an in-depth understanding of consumers' information needs

sj-docx-2-whe-10.1177_17455057241233124 – Supplemental material for Health providers’ reasons for participating in abortion care: A scoping review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-whe-10.1177_17455057241233124 for Health providers’ reasons for participating in abortion care: A scoping review by Bronwen Merner, Casey M Haining, Lindy Willmott, Julian Savulescu and Louise A Keogh in Women’s Health</p

sj-docx-1-whe-10.1177_17455057241233124 – Supplemental material for Health providers’ reasons for participating in abortion care: A scoping review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-whe-10.1177_17455057241233124 for Health providers’ reasons for participating in abortion care: A scoping review by Bronwen Merner, Casey M Haining, Lindy Willmott, Julian Savulescu and Louise A Keogh in Women’s Health</p

Priority populations' experiences of isolation, quarantine and distancing for COVID-19 : protocol for a longitudinal cohort study (Optimise Study)

Introduction: Longitudinal studies can provide timely and accurate information to evaluate and inform COVID-19 control and mitigation strategies and future pandemic preparedness. The Optimise Study is a multidisciplinary research platform established in the Australian state of Victoria in September 2020 to collect epidemiological, social, psychological and behavioural data from priority populations. It aims to understand changing public attitudes, behaviours and experiences of COVID-19 and inform epidemic modelling and support responsive government policy. Methods and analysis: This protocol paper describes the data collection procedures for the Optimise Study, an ongoing longitudinal cohort of ~1000 Victorian adults and their social networks. Participants are recruited using snowball sampling with a set of seeds and two waves of snowball recruitment. Seeds are purposively selected from priority groups, including recent COVID-19 cases and close contacts and people at heightened risk of infection and/or adverse outcomes of COVID-19 infection and/or public health measures. Participants complete a schedule of monthly quantitative surveys and daily diaries for up to 24 months, plus additional surveys annually for up to 48 months. Cohort participants are recruited for qualitative interviews at key time points to enable in-depth exploration of people's lived experiences. Separately, community representatives are invited to participate in community engagement groups, which review and interpret research findings to inform policy and practice recommendations. Ethics and dissemination: The Optimise longitudinal cohort and qualitative interviews are approved by the Alfred Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (# 333/20). The Optimise Study CEG is approved by the La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee (# HEC20532). All participants provide informed verbal consent to enter the cohort, with additional consent provided prior to any of the sub studies. Study findings will be disseminated through public website (https://optimisecovid.com.au/study-findings/) and through peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration number NCT05323799

Priority populations’ experiences of isolation, quarantine and distancing for COVID-19: protocol for a longitudinal cohort study (Optimise Study)

Introduction Longitudinal studies can provide timely and accurate information to evaluate and inform COVID-19 control and mitigation strategies and future pandemic preparedness. The Optimise Study is a multidisciplinary research platform established in the Australian state of Victoria in September 2020 to collect epidemiological, social, psychological and behavioural data from priority populations. It aims to understand changing public attitudes, behaviours and experiences of COVID-19 and inform epidemic modelling and support responsive government policy.Methods and analysis This protocol paper describes the data collection procedures for the Optimise Study, an ongoing longitudinal cohort of ~1000 Victorian adults and their social networks. Participants are recruited using snowball sampling with a set of seeds and two waves of snowball recruitment. Seeds are purposively selected from priority groups, including recent COVID-19 cases and close contacts and people at heightened risk of infection and/or adverse outcomes of COVID-19 infection and/or public health measures. Participants complete a schedule of monthly quantitative surveys and daily diaries for up to 24 months, plus additional surveys annually for up to 48 months. Cohort participants are recruited for qualitative interviews at key time points to enable in-depth exploration of people’s lived experiences. Separately, community representatives are invited to participate in community engagement groups, which review and interpret research findings to inform policy and practice recommendations.Ethics and dissemination The Optimise longitudinal cohort and qualitative interviews are approved by the Alfred Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (# 333/20). The Optimise Study CEG is approved by the La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee (# HEC20532). All participants provide informed verbal consent to enter the cohort, with additional consent provided prior to any of the sub studies. Study findings will be disseminated through public website (https://optimisecovid.com.au/study-findings/) and through peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration number NCT05323799