The impact of third-party authorization requirements on abortion-related outcomes: a synthesis of legal and health evidence.

OBJECTIVES: This review synthesizes legal and health evidence to demonstrate the health and human rights impacts of third-party authorization requirements (TPAs) on abortion seekers. RESULTS: The synthesized evidence substantiates the pre-existing position in international human rights law that requirements that abortion be authorized by third parties like parents, spouses, committees, and courts create barriers to abortion, should not be introduced at all, or should be repealed where they exist. CONCLUSIONS: The review establishes that rights-based regulation of abortion should not impose TPAs in any circumstances. Instead, the provision and management of abortion should be treated in a manner cognizant with the general principles of informed consent in international human rights law, presuming capacity in all adults regardless of marital status and treatment sought, and recognizing the evolving capacity of young people in line with their internationally-protected rights.

In-country availability of medical abortion medicines: a description of the framework and methodology of the WHO landscape assessments.

BACKGROUND: Availability of quality-assured medical abortion medicines plays a crucial role in providing comprehensive abortion care. However, access to these medicines is still restricted for many abortion seekers. Increasing availability of affordable, quality-assured mifepristone and misoprostol is important to improve access to safe medical abortion services. Driven by the outcomes of a global consultation hosted by the World Health Organization and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency in 2018, we decided to holistically examine access to medical abortion medicines from supply to demand. The overarching principle of the national landscape assessments was to generate evidence to support policy dialog and policymaking that is contextual to the needs of the country. This paper aims to describe the framework and methodological approach used in the World Health Organization landscape assessments of medical abortion medicines at country-level. METHODS: A country assessment protocol was developed to guide the methodology of the World Health Organization landscape assessments. The assessment protocol included adaptation of an existing availability framework, an online desk review and literature review for existing data available for the country of interest, country-level key informant interviews, and analysis of the data to identify barriers and opportunities to improve medical abortion availability. CONCLUSION: The availability framework and methodology will allow the identification of key barriers that limit readiness of medical abortion medicines, and the development of opportunities to overcome those barriers. The national landscape assessments will provide directions for future investments and offer guidance for policy and programming on medical abortion care.

Increasing availability of affordable, safe, and effective medical abortion medicines is necessary to improve access to safe medical abortion services. Driven by the results of a meeting hosted by the World Health Organization and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency in 2018, we decided to examine access to medical abortion medicines from supply to demand in selected countries. The overarching goal of the national landscape assessments was to generate evidence to support advocacy efforts and policymaking that is appropriate to the needs of the country. This paper aims to describe the assessment protocol and the steps taken in the World Health Organization landscape assessments of medical abortion medicines at country-level. The assessment allows for a determination of the enabling environment surrounding the provision of medical abortion services. This in turn allows for the identification of key barriers that limit availability of abortion medicines, and the identification of opportunities to overcome those barriers. The availability framework includes both supply and demand sides of commodity availability, considering factors from product introduction to use. This approach can be used for future national assessments for any health commodity or service. The assessment findings will be informative to policymakers and programme managers in developing plans to safeguard availability of safe and effective medical abortion medicines.

Availability of medical abortion medicines in eight countries: a descriptive analysis of key findings and opportunities.

BACKGROUND: In recent years a growing number of manufacturers and medical abortion products have entered country markets and health systems, with varying degrees of quality and accessibility. An interplay of factors including pharmaceutical regulations, abortion laws, government policies and service delivery guidelines and provider's knowledge and practices influence the availability of medical abortion medicines. We assessed the availability of medical abortion in eight countries to increase understanding among policymakers of the need to improve availability and affordability of quality-assured medical abortion products at regional and national levels. METHODS: Using a national assessment protocol and an availability framework, we assessed the availability of medical abortion medicines in Bangladesh, Liberia, Malawi, Nepal, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and South Africa between September 2019 and January 2020. RESULTS: Registration of abortion medicines-misoprostol or a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol-was established in all countries assessed, except Rwanda. Mifepristone and misoprostol regimen for medical abortion was identified on the national essential medicines list/standard treatment guidelines for South Africa as well as in specific abortion care service and delivery guidelines for Bangladesh, Nepal, Nigeria, and Rwanda. In Liberia, Malawi, and Sierra Leone-countries with highly restrictive abortion laws and no abortion service delivery guidelines or training curricula-no government-supported training on medical abortion for public sector providers had occurred. Instead, training on medical abortion was either limited in scope to select private sector providers and pharmacists or prohibited. Community awareness activities on medical abortion have been limited in scope across the countries assessed and where abortion is broadly legal, most women do not know that it is an option. CONCLUSION: Understanding the factors that influence the availability of medical abortion medicines is important to support policymakers improve availability of these medicines. The landscape assessments documented that medical abortion commodities can be uniquely impacted by the laws, policies, values, and degree of restrictions placed on service delivery programs. Results of the assessments can guide actions to improve access.

Unsafe abortion is a leading cause of death and disability among women of reproductive age. Medical management of abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol pills, or just misoprostol, is a safe and effective way to end a pregnancy. Owing to an increase in the number of medical abortion products that have entered country health systems, we examined access to these medicines from supply to demand in selected countries. The overarching goal of the national landscape assessments was to produce evidence to support advocacy efforts and policymaking for improved access to quality medical abortion products that is appropriate to the needs of the country. This paper aims to describe key findings across eight country settings on the availability of medical abortion medicines and identify key opportunities to improve access to them across countries.

The impact of 'grounds' on abortion-related outcomes: a synthesis of legal and health evidence.

Where abortion is legal, it is often regulated through a grounds-based approach. A grounds-based approach to abortion provision occurs when law and policy provide that lawful abortion may be provided only where a person who wishes to have an abortion satisfies stipulated 'grounds', sometimes described as 'exceptions' or 'exceptional grounds'. Grounds-based approaches to abortion are, prima facie, restrictive as they limit access to abortion based on factors extraneous to the preferences of the pregnant person. International human rights law specifies that abortion must be available (and not 'merely' lawful) where the life or health of the pregnant woman or girl is at risk, or where carrying a pregnancy to term would cause her substantial pain or suffering, including but not limited to situations where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or the pregnancy is not viable. However, international human rights law does not specify a grounds-based approach as the way to give effect to this requirement. The aim of this review is to address knowledge gaps related to the health and non-health outcomes plausibly related to the effects of a grounds-based approach to abortion regulation. The evidence from this review shows that grounds have negative implications for access to quality abortion and for the human rights of pregnant people. Further, it shows that grounds-based approaches are insufficient to meet states' human rights obligations. The evidence presented in this review thus suggests that enabling access to abortion on request would be more rights-enhancing than grounds-based approaches to abortion regulation.

The impact of mandatory waiting periods on abortion-related outcomes: a synthesis of legal and health evidence.

This review follows an established methodology for integrating human rights to address knowledge gaps related to the health and non-health outcomes of mandatory waiting periods (MWPs) for access to abortion. MWP is a requirement imposed by law, policy, or practice, to wait a specified amount of time between requesting and receiving abortion care. Recognizing that MWPs "demean[] women as competent decision-makers", the World Health Organization recommends against MWPs. International human rights bodies have similarly encouraged states to repeal and not to introduce MWPs, which they recognize as operating as barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive healthcare. This review of 34 studies published between 2010 and 2021, together with international human rights law, establishes the health and non-health harms of MWPs for people seeking abortion, including delayed abortion, opportunity costs, and disproportionate impact. Impacts on abortion providers include increased workloads and system costs.

The impact of provider restrictions on abortion-related outcomes: a synthesis of legal and health evidence.

Many components of abortion care in early pregnancy can safely be provided on an outpatient basis by mid-level providers or by pregnant people themselves. Yet, some states impose non-evidence-based provider restrictions, understood as legal or regulatory restrictions on who may provide or manage all or some aspects of abortion care. These restrictions are inconsistent with the World Health Organization's support for the optimization of the roles of various health workers, and do not usually reflect evidence-based determinations of who can provide abortion. As a matter of international human rights law, states should ensure that the regulation of abortion is evidence-based and proportionate, and disproportionate impacts must be remedied. Furthermore, states are obliged take steps to ensure women do not have to undergo unsafe abortion, to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality, and to effectively protect women and girls from the physical and mental risks associated with unsafe abortion. States must revise their laws to ensure this. Where laws restrict those with the training and competence to provide from participating in abortion care, they are prima facie arbitrary and disproportionate and thus in need of reform. This review, developed by experts in reproductive health, law, policy, and human rights, examined the impact of provider restrictions on people seeking abortion, and medical professionals. The evidence from this review suggests that provider restrictions have negative implications for access to quality abortion, contributing inter alia to delays and recourse to unsafe abortion. A human rights-based approach to abortion regulation would require the removal of overly restrictive provider restrictions. The review provides evidence that speaks to possible routes for regulatory reform by expanding the health workforce involved in abortion-related care, as well as expanding health workers' roles, both of which could improve timely access to first trimester surgical and medical abortion, reduce costs, save time, and reduce the need for travel.

This review identifies evidence of the impacts of provider restrictions on people seeking to access abortion and on abortion providers. It pursues a methodology designed to ensure the full integration of public health and human rights standards developed by the research team and published elsewhere. The evidence from this review points clearly to provider restrictions having negative implications for health outcomes, health systems, and human rights. This is especially important as international guidance provided by the WHO indicates best practice in provision and management of abortion and shows clearly that undue provider restrictions are not justified by reference to the nature and complexity of abortion.

Methods for managing miscarriage: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their lifetime. An estimated 15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Miscarriage can lead to serious morbidity, including haemorrhage, infection, and even death, particularly in settings without adequate healthcare provision. Early miscarriages occur during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, and can be managed expectantly, medically or surgically. However, there is uncertainty about the relative effectiveness and risks of each option. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the relative effectiveness and safety profiles for the different management methods for early miscarriage, and to provide rankings of the available methods according to their effectiveness, safety, and side-effect profile using a network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 February 2021), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (12 February 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness or safety of methods for miscarriage management. Early miscarriage was defined as less than or equal to 14 weeks of gestation, and included missed and incomplete miscarriage. Management of late miscarriages after 14 weeks of gestation (often referred to as intrauterine fetal deaths) was not eligible for inclusion in the review. Cluster- and quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. We excluded non-randomised trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least three review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for the primary outcomes of complete miscarriage and composite outcome of death or serious complications. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Relative effects for the primary outcomes are reported subgrouped by the type of miscarriage (incomplete and missed miscarriage). We also performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available methods. MAIN RESULTS: Our network meta-analysis included 78 randomised trials involving 17,795 women from 37 countries. Most trials (71/78) were conducted in hospital settings and included women with missed or incomplete miscarriage. Across 158 trial arms, the following methods were used: 51 trial arms (33%) used misoprostol; 50 (32%) used suction aspiration; 26 (16%) used expectant management or placebo; 17 (11%) used dilatation and curettage; 11 (6%) used mifepristone plus misoprostol; and three (2%) used suction aspiration plus cervical preparation. Of these 78 studies, 71 (90%) contributed data in a usable form for meta-analysis. Complete miscarriage Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 59 trials (12,591 women), we found that five methods may be more effective than expectant management or placebo for achieving a complete miscarriage: · suction aspiration after cervical preparation (risk ratio (RR) 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.20, low-certainty evidence), · dilatation and curettage (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.75, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.62, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.66, moderate-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.46, low-certainty evidence). The highest ranked surgical method was suction aspiration after cervical preparation. The highest ranked non-surgical treatment was mifepristone plus misoprostol. All surgical methods were ranked higher than medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Composite outcome of death and serious complications Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 35 trials (8161 women), we found that four methods with available data were compatible with a wide range of treatment effects compared with expectant management or placebo: · dilatation and curettage (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.06, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.32, low-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.15, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.84, low-certainty evidence). Importantly, no deaths were reported in these studies, thus this composite outcome was entirely composed of serious complications, including blood transfusions, uterine perforations, hysterectomies, and intensive care unit admissions. Expectant management and placebo ranked the lowest when compared with alternative treatment interventions. Subgroup analyses by type of miscarriage (missed or incomplete) agreed with the overall analysis in that surgical methods were the most effective treatment, followed by medical methods and then expectant management or placebo, but there are possible subgroup differences in the effectiveness of the available methods.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on relative effects from the network meta-analysis, all surgical and medical methods for managing a miscarriage may be more effective than expectant management or placebo. Surgical methods were ranked highest for managing a miscarriage, followed by medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Expectant management or placebo had the highest chance of serious complications, including the need for unplanned or emergency surgery. A subgroup analysis showed that surgical and medical methods may be more beneficial in women with missed miscarriage compared to women with incomplete miscarriage. Since type of miscarriage (missed and incomplete) appears to be a source of inconsistency and heterogeneity within these data, we acknowledge that the main network meta-analysis may be unreliable. However, we plan to explore this further in future updates and consider the primary analysis as separate networks for missed and incomplete miscarriage.

Medical termination for pregnancy in early first trimester (≤ 63 days) using combination of mifepristone and misoprostol or misoprostol alone: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A wide range of drugs have been studied for first trimester medical abortion. Studies evaluating different regimens, including combination mifepristone and misoprostol and misoprostol alone regimens, show varying results related to safety, efficacy and other outcomes. Thus, the objectives of this systematic review were to compare the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of medical abortion and to compare medical with surgical methods of abortion ≤63 days of gestation. METHODS: Pubmed and EMBASE were systematically searched from database inception through January 2019 using a combination of MeSH, keywords and text words. Randomized controlled trials on induced abortion at ≤63 days that compared different regimens of medical abortion using mifepristone and/or misoprostol and trials that compared medical with surgical methods of abortion were included. We extracted data into a pre-designed form, calculated effect estimates, and performed meta-analyses where possible. The primary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy and successful abortion. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies composed of 22,275 participants were included in this review. Combined regimens using mifepristone and misoprostol had lower rates of ongoing pregnancy, higher rates of successful abortion and satisfaction compared to misoprostol only regimens. In combined regimens, misoprostol 800 µg was more effective than 400 µg. There was no significant difference in dosing intervals between mifepristone and misoprostol and routes of misoprostol administration in combination or misoprostol alone regimens. The rate of serious adverse events was generally low. CONCLUSION: In this systematic review, we find that medical methods of abortion utilizing combination mifepristone and misoprostol or misoprostol alone are effective, safe and acceptable. More robust studies evaluating both the different combination and misoprostol alone regimens are needed to strengthen existing evidence as well as assess patient perspectives towards a particular regimen.

Global Abortion Policies Database: a descriptive analysis of the legal categories of lawful abortion.

BACKGROUND: Texts and interpretations on the lawfulness of abortion and associated administrative requirements can be vague and confusing. It can also be difficult for a woman or provider to know exactly where to look for and how to interpret laws on abortion. To increase transparency, the Global Abortion Policies Database (GAPD), launched in 2017, facilitates the strengthening of knowledge and understanding of the complexities and nuances around lawful abortion as explicitly stated in laws and policies. METHODS: We report on data available in the GAPD as of May 2018. We reviewed the content and wording of laws, policies, standards and guidelines, judgments and other official statements for all countries where data is available in the GAPD. We analyzed data for 158 countries, where abortion is lawful on the woman's request with no requirement for justification and/or for at least one legal ground, including additional indications that are nonequivalent to a single common legal ground. We classified laws on the basis of the explicit wording of the text. The GAPD treats legal categories as the circumstances under which abortion is lawful, that is, allowed or not contrary to law, or explicitly permitted or specified by law. RESULTS: 32% of countries allow or permit abortion at the woman's request with no requirement for justification. Approximately 82% of countries allow or permit abortion to save the woman's life. 64% of countries specify health, physical health and/or mental (or psychological) health. 51% allow or permit abortion based on a fetal condition, 46% of countries allow or permit abortion where the pregnancy is the result of rape, and 10% specify an economic or social ground. Laws may also specify several additional indications that are nonequivalent to a single legal ground. CONCLUSIONS: The GAPD reflects details that exist within countries' laws and highlights the nuance within legal categories of abortion; no assumptions are made as to how laws are interpreted or applied in practice. By examining the text of the law, additional complexities related to the legal categories of abortion become more apparent.

Global Abortion Policies Database: a new approach to strengthening knowledge on laws, policies, and human rights standards.

BACKGROUND: The Global Abortion Policies Database (GAPD), launched in June 2017, provides a verifiable, comprehensive, nuanced approach to information and data sources on abortion law and policy. Abortion laws, policies, and guidelines from United Nations (UN) and World Health Organization (WHO) Member States are juxtaposed to information and recommendations from WHO safe abortion guidance, national sexual and reproductive health indicators, and relevant UN human rights bodies' concluding observations to countries. MAIN BODY: The Global Abortion Policies Database aims to increase transparency of information and accountability of states for the protection of individuals' health and human rights. The database presents current information on abortion laws and policies that goes beyond categories of lawful abortion to include information on additional access requirements, service provision, conscientious objection, and penalties. Wide-ranging variations among countries' legal requirements and criminal penalties raise questions about the evidentiary and human rights basis for abortion laws and policies. Source documents found in the database highlight that in many jurisdictions legal and policy guidance is either non-existent, not clear, or conflicting. By juxtaposing a jurisdiction's abortion laws and policies to relevant WHO guidance and by facilitating comparisons of countries' sexual and reproductive health indicators, the database can enable deep policy analysis of states' obligations to meet the health needs and human rights of individuals in the context of abortion. Policy analysis in the context of authoritative guidance on human rights standards can enable health and rights advocates to hold governments accountable for respecting, protecting, and fulfilling individuals' human rights. CONCLUSION: The GAPD is a comprehensive tool that can be used to strengthen knowledge, inform law and policy research to generate evidence on the impact of laws and policies in practice, and facilitate greater awareness of the many challenges to creating enabling policy environments for safe abortion.

Reversal of medication abortion with progesterone: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether there is evidence to recommend progesterone for individuals not wishing to complete a medication abortion after taking mifepristone. METHODS: We undertook an updated systematic review including a primary search for studies in which individuals received progesterone to reverse the effects of mifepristone, and a secondary search for studies in which individuals received mifepristone alone. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL and grey literature up to December 2022. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools for risk of bias assessment. We compared ongoing pregnancy rates among individuals treated with progesterone to those managed expectantly. RESULTS: We did not find new studies in our secondary search. For the main search, we included three case series and one randomised controlled trial. Data were available for 561 individuals who received progesterone after mifepristone, of whom 271 (48%) had ongoing pregnancies. The quality of the evidence in the case series was low due to methodological and ethical issues. Enrollment in the randomised trial stopped early due to bleeding events in both arms. The ongoing pregnancy rate for individuals ≤7 weeks who received progesterone was 42% (95% CI 37-48) compared with 22% (95% CI 11-39) for mifepristone alone. At 7-8 weeks, the ongoing pregnancy rate was 62% (95% CI 52-71) in the progesterone group and 50% (95% CI 15- 85) in the mifepristone alone group. CONCLUSION: Based mostly on poor-quality data, it appears the ongoing pregnancy rate in individuals treated with progesterone after mifepristone is not significantly higher compared to that of individuals receiving mifepristone alone.

Assessment of unintended pregnancies, contraception, and abortion in Botswana.

Botswana has a policy of contraception for all that is delivered through a rights-based family planning program. The program combines a "rights-based family planning approach" with "supportive policies for contraception," and "a commitment to promote equitable access to modern contraception, and expand availability, method mix and uptake of modern contraceptive methods for all women and girls." However, abortion is legally restricted up to 16 weeks of pregnancy provided that provisions of Section 160-162 of the Botswana Penal Code Amendment Act 1991 are met, and that the termination of pregnancy is carried out by a registered medical practitioner in a health facility approved for the purpose. In 2020, the Ministry of Health and Wellness, Botswana, in collaboration with United Nations Population Fund and World Health Organization, conducted a strategic assessment of unintended pregnancies, contraception, unsafe abortion, and abortion services in Botswana. A consensus operational plan to address these issues was developed during a national stakeholder meeting in Gaborone, Botswana. The consensus reached was to avert unintended pregnancies, improve access to modern contraception, and open nationwide discussions around abortion in the community to enable positive change and decrease maternal morbidity and mortality from unsafe abortion. This article describes the findings of the assessment and outlines the foundation for new or modified services or practices to be developed and pilot tested.

Integrating international policy standards in the implementation of postnatal care: a rapid review.

INTRODUCTION: International legal and political documents can assist policy-makers and programme managers in countries to create an enabling environment to promote maternal and newborn health. This review aimed to map and summarise international legal and political documents relevant to the implementation of the WHO recommendations on maternal and newborn care for a positive postnatal experience. METHODS: Rapid review of relevant international legal and political documents, including legal and political commitments (declarations, resolutions and treaties) and interpretations (general comments, recommendations from United Nations human rights treaty bodies, joint United Nations statements). Documents were mapped to the domains presented in the WHO postnatal care (PNC) recommendations; relating to maternal care, newborn care, and health systems and health promotion interventions, and by type of human right implied and/or stated in the documents. RESULTS: Twenty-nine documents describing international legal and political commitments and interpretations were mapped, out of 45 documents captured. These 29 documents, published or entered into force between 1944 and 2020, contained content relevant to most of the domains of the PNC recommendations, most prominently the domains of breastfeeding and health systems interventions and service delivery arrangements. The most frequently mapped human rights were the right to health and the right to social security. CONCLUSION: Existing international legal and political documents can inform and encourage policy and programme development at the country level, to create an enabling environment during the postnatal period and thereby support the provision and uptake of PNC and improve health outcomes for women, newborns, children and families. Governments and civil society organisations should be aware of these documents to support efforts to protect and promote maternal and newborn health.

Multicountry research on comprehensive abortion policy implementation in Latin America: a mixed-methods study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Access to comprehensive abortion care could prevent the death of between 13 865 and 38 940 women and the associated morbidity of 5 million women worldwide. There have been some important improvements in Latin America in terms of laws and policies on abortion. However, the predominant environment is still restrictive, and many women, adolescents and girls still face multiple barriers to exercise their reproductive rights. This research will systematically assess comprehensive abortion policies in five Latin American countries (Argentina, Colombia, Honduras, Mexico and Uruguay). The aim is to identify barriers, facilitators and strategies to the implementation of abortion policies, looking at four key dimensions-regulatory framework, abortion policy dynamics, abortion service delivery and health system and health outcomes indicators-to draw cross-cutting lessons learnt to improve current implementation and inform future safe abortion policy development. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed-method design will be used in the five countries to address the four dimensions through the Availability, Accessibility, Acceptability and Quality of Care model. The data collection tools include desk reviews and semi-structured interviews with key actors. Analysis will be performed using thematic analysis and stakeholder analysis. A regional synthesis exercise will be conducted to draw lessons on barriers, facilitators and the strategies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The project has been approved by the WHO Research Ethics Review Committee (ID: A66023) and by the local research ethics committees. Informed consent will be obtained from participants. Data will be treated with careful attention to protecting privacy and confidentiality. Findings from the study will be disseminated through a multipurpose strategy to target diverse audiences to foster the use of the study findings to inform the public debate agenda and policy implementation at national level. The strategy will include academic, advocacy and policy arenas and actors, including peer-reviewed publication and national and regional dissemination workshops.

A global review of penalties for abortion-related offences in 182 countries.

Public health research and human rights bodies have demonstrated the risks involved with criminalising abortion services and noted a need for full decriminalisation. Despite this, abortions are criminalised in some circumstances in almost all countries in the world today. This paper uses data from the Global Abortion Policies Database (GAPD) to analyse what criminal penalties exist for those who are seeking, providing and assisting in abortions in 182 countries.This paper uses data on abortion-related penalties available on the GAPD as of October 2022. It includes which actors are penalised, whether specific penalties exist for negligence, non-consensual abortions, whether any secondary additional considerations/judicial discretion exist in sentencing and the legal sources for these penalties.134 countries penalise abortion-seekers, 181 countries penalise abortion-providers and 159 countries penalise persons assisting in abortions. The maximum penalty is between 0 and 5 years of imprisonment in a majority of countries; however, it can be much higher in other countries. Some countries further prescribe fines, and professional sanctions for providers and those who assist. 34 countries restrict the dissemination of information about abortion.The range of possible penalties across countries and associated aggravating and mitigating factors for imposing these penalties support arguments for the decriminalisation of abortion on the grounds of arbitrariness. Abortions are also predominantly regulated through the criminal law, which may compound the stigma associated with seeking, assisting with and/or providing abortions when it is criminalised.There has been no comprehensive study of penalties for abortion at a global level. This article describes what specific penalties abortion seekers and providers face, what factors may increase or decrease these penalties, and the legal sources for these penalties. The findings provide additional evidence of the arbitrariness and potential for stigma associated with the criminalisation of abortion and strengthen the case for decriminalisation.

Comparative situational analysis of comprehensive abortion care in four Southern African countries.

We report on a comparative situational analysis of comprehensive abortion care (CAC) in Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho and Namibia. We conducted systematic literature searches and country consultations and used a reparative health justice approach (with four dimensions) for the analysis. The following findings pertain to all four countries, except where indicated. Individual material dimension: pervasive gender-based violence (GBV); unmet need for contraception (15-17%); high HIV prevalence; poor abortion access for rape survivors; fees for sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services (Eswatini). Collective material dimension: no clear national budgeting for SRH; over-reliance on donor funding (Eswatini; Lesotho); no national CAC guidelines or guidance on legal abortion access; poor data collection and management systems; shortage and inequitable distribution of staff; few facilities providing abortion care. Individual symbolic dimension: gender norms justify GBV; stigma attached to both abortion and unwed or early pregnancies. Collective symbolic dimension: policy commitments to reducing unsafe abortion and to post-abortion care, but not to increasing access to legal abortion; inadequate research; contradictions in abortion legislation (Botswana); inadequate staff training in CAC. Political will to ensure CAC within the country's legislation is required. Reparative health justice comparisons provide a powerful tool for foregrounding necessary policy and practice change.

A narrative review of challenges related to healthcare worker rights, roles and responsibilities in the provision of sexual and reproductive services in health facilities.

INTRODUCTION: This paper identifies and summarises tensions and challenges related to healthcare worker rights and responsibilities and describes how they affect healthcare worker roles in the provision of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) care in health facilities. METHOD: The review was undertaken in a two-phase process, namely: (1) development of a list of core constructs and concepts relating to healthcare worker rights, roles and responsibilities to guide the review and (2) literature review. RESULT: A total of 110 papers addressing a variety of SRH areas and geographical locations met our inclusion criteria. These papers addressed challenges to healthcare worker rights, roles and responsibilities, including conflicting laws, policies and guidelines; pressure to achieve coverage and quality; violations of the rights and professionalism of healthcare workers, undercutting their ability and motivation to fulfil their responsibilities; inadequate stewardship of the private sector; competing paradigms for decision-making-such as religious beliefs-that are inconsistent with professional responsibilities; donor conditionalities and fragmentation; and, the persistence of embedded practical norms that are at odds with healthcare worker rights and responsibilities. The tensions lead to a host of undesirable outcomes, ranging from professional frustration to the provision of a narrower range of services or of poor-quality services. CONCLUSION: Social mores relating to gender and sexuality and other contested domains that relate to social norms, provider religious identity and other deeply held beliefs complicate the terrain for SRH in particular. Despite the particularities of SRH, a whole of systems response may be best suited to address embedded challenges.

The Impact of 'conscientious objection' on abortion-related outcomes: A synthesis of legal and health evidence.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and international human rights bodies have long urged states to take steps to ensure that 'conscientious objection' does not undermine access to abortion in practice. This review uses an established methodology to identify and integrate evidence of the health and human rights impacts of the practice of conscientious objection/refusal. The evidence identified in this review suggests strongly that conscientious objection negatively affects the rights of abortion seekers and has negative implications for the rights of non-objecting health workers. This is exacerbated in situations where an exercise of 'conscience' goes beyond 'opting out' of providing care and extends into seeking to prevent abortion through dissuasion, misinformation, misdirection, delay, and sometimes abuse. The insights from this review suggest that states must take better and further action to centre abortion seekers in the regulation of conscientious objection, and to prevent and ensure accountability for rights-limiting manifestations of conscience that go beyond opting out of direct provision of abortion care in non-emergency settings.

Restrictive points of entry into abortion care in Ireland: a qualitative study of expectations and experiences with the service.

This article focuses on access to early medical abortion care under Section 12 of the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018, in Ireland and identifies existing barriers resulting from gaps in current policy design. The article draws primarily on qualitative interviews with 24 service users, 20 primary healthcare providers in the community and 27 key informants, including from grassroots groups that work with women from different migrant communities, to examine service users' experiences accessing early medical abortions on request up to 12 weeks gestation. The interviews were part of a wider mixed-methods study from 2020-2021 examining the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of abortion policy in Ireland. Our findings highlight care seekers' experiences with the GP-led service provision, including delays, facing non-providers, the mandatory three-day waiting period, and oversubscribed women's health and family planning clinics. Our findings also highlight the compounding challenges for migrants and additional barriers posed by the geographical distribution of the service and the 12-week gestational limit. Finally, it focuses on the remaining challenges for racialised and other marginalised groups. In order to provide a "thick description" of women's lives and the complexity of their experiences with abortion services in Ireland, we also present two narrative vignettes of service users, and their experiences with delays and navigating the healthcare system as migrants. To this effect, this article applies a reproductive justice framework to the results to highlight the compounding effects of these barriers on people located along multiple axes of social inequality.