The illusion of treatment choice in abortion care: A qualitative study of comparative care experiences in England and Wales.

Treatment choice is a key component of quality, person-centred care, but policies promoting choice often ignore how capacity to choose is unequally distributed and influenced by social structures. In abortion care, the choice of either medication or a procedure is limited in many countries, but the structuring of treatment choice from the perspective of people accessing abortion care is poorly understood. This qualitative study explored comparative experiences of abortion treatment choice in England and Wales, using in-depth interviews with 32 people who recently accessed abortion care and had one or more prior abortions. A codebook approach was used to analyse the data, informed by a multidisciplinary framework for understanding the relationship between choice and equity. Abortion treatment choice was structured by multiple intersecting mechanisms: limitations on the supply of abortion care, incomplete or unbalanced information from providers, and participants' socio-economic environments. Long waiting times or travel distances could reduce choice of both treatment options. In interactions with providers, participants described not being offered procedural abortions or receiving information that favoured medication abortion. Participants' socio-economic environments impacted the way they navigated decision-making and their ability to manage the experience of either treatment option. Individual preferences for care were shaped in part by the interplay between these structural barriers, creating an illusion of choice, as the health system bias towards medication abortion reinforced some participants' negative perceptions of procedural abortion. The erosion of choice, to the point it is rendered illusory, has unequal impacts on quality of care. People's needs for their abortion care are complex and diverse, and access to varied service models is required to meet these needs. Treatment choice could be expanded by integrating public and private non-profit sector provision, aligning time limits and workforce requirements for abortion care with international standards, addressing financial pressures on service delivery, and revising the language used to depict each treatment option.

Exploring provider preference and provision of abortion methods and stigma: Secondary analysis of a United Kingdom provider survey.

INTRODUCTION: Method choice is an important component of quality abortion care and qualitative research suggests that abortion stigma can influence provider preference and provision of abortion methods. This study is the first to explore the relationships between abortion providers' method preferences, their provision of medication or instrumentation abortion or both methods, and abortion stigma. METHODS: We conducted secondary analysis of a survey of United Kingdom (UK) abortion providers (N = 172) to describe and compare providers' self-reported method preferences and provision. We used multinomial logistic regression to assess the association between method preference and provider experiences of abortion stigma (measured using a revised Abortion Provider Stigma Scale (APSS)), adjusting for relevant provider and facility characteristics. RESULTS: Almost half (52%) of providers reported that they only provided medication abortion care, while 5% only provided instrumentation abortion care and 43% provided both methods. Most (62%) preferred to provide both methods while 32% preferred to provide only medication abortion and 6% only instrumentation abortion. There was no significant difference in revised APSS scores by provider method preference or provision. DISCUSSION: Most surveyed UK abortion providers prefer to offer both methods, but over half only provide medication abortion. This may reflect patients' preferences for medication abortion, and health system and legal constraints on instrumentation abortion. Addressing these systemic constraints on method provision could expand patient choice. Providers' method preference was not significantly associated with provider stigma but future research should consider the influence of structural stigma on method provision at the health system level.

Adapting to a global pandemic: a qualitative assessment of programmatic responses to COVID-19 in the multi-country Women's Integrated Sexual Health (WISH) programme.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruption to sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) globally but there is little published evidence on the COVID-19 response of SRHR programmes, or lessons learned through their adaptations. To document the COVID-19 response of a global SRHR programme (the Women's Integrated Sexual Health programme), in-depth interviews were conducted between April and July 2021 with 22 key informants from implementing partners in Sierra Leone, Ethiopia and central or regional offices, the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the third-party monitoring partner. Framework analysis methods were used. Several rapid COVID-19 adaptations were identified: the development of crisis management and communication teams; increased partnership and engagement with government; reduced contact and risk in service delivery; reformulated community mobilisation; flexible performance management and remote methods of quality assurance; and sharing of learnings alongside the development of new guidance and tools. Throughout the pandemic, the programme was able to continue high-quality service delivery, though equity goals proved more difficult to reach. Challenges included the continually changing environment, competing pressures on governments, burdensome reporting, and staff burnout. The pandemic response was facilitated by prior experience of health emergencies, strong government relationships, a supportive workforce and some pre-existing approaches, tools, and systems. This study has identified important lessons that can inform programming in future crises, including the need for immediate recognition of SRHR as essential, sustained support for staff, use of multiple mechanisms to reach marginalised groups, adequate funding for equity goals, and a better balance between the burden of reporting and accountability needs.

Inclusion of abortion-related care in national health benefit packages: results from a WHO global survey.

INTRODUCTION: Service inclusion in a country's health benefit package (HBP) is an important milestone towards universal health coverage. This study aimed to explore HBP inclusion of abortion interventions globally. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the WHO HBP survey, in which officially nominated survey focal points were asked which interventions were included within the HBP of their country or area's largest government health financing scheme. Abortion inclusion was compared by region, income, legal status of abortion and HBP design process variables. Abortion inclusion was compared with other sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services. RESULTS: Below half (45%) reported that abortion is included, but treatment of complications from unsafe abortion was more commonly included (63%). Fewer fully included essential abortion medications (22% mifepristone, 42% misoprostol). Abortion was less commonly included than any other SRH service in the survey. Unlike most SRH services, higher cost, higher technology care to treat complications of unsafe abortion was more commonly included than the relatively lower cost, lower technology service of induced abortion. Higher-income contexts and less restrictive legal environments had higher abortion inclusion. Some contexts had additional restrictions, with abortion inclusion dependent on the patient's reason for seeking care. CONCLUSION: This global survey finds that abortion services and medications are often not included within HBPs, while treatment of complications from unsafe abortion is more commonly included. There are opportunities to improve HBP abortion inclusion across different legal contexts, which can improve health outcomes and reduce the need for higher cost treatment of complications from unsafe abortion.

Revolution in abortion care? Perspectives of key informants on the importance of abortion method choice in the era of telemedicine.

Patient choice of medical or surgical abortion is a standard of quality abortion care, but the choice of surgical abortion is constrained in England and Wales, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic and introduction of telemedicine. This qualitative study explored the perspectives of abortion service providers, managers, and funders on the need to offer a choice of methods within early gestation abortion services in England and Wales. Twenty-seven key informant interviews were conducted between August and November 2021, and framework analysis methods were used. Participants presented arguments both for and against offering method choice. Most participants felt that it was important to maintain choice, although they recognised that medical abortion suits most patients, that both methods are very safe and acceptable, and that the priority for abortion services is to maintain timely access to respectful care. Their arguments related to practicalities around patient needs, the risk of reinforcing inequalities in access to patient-centred care, potential impacts on patients and providers, comparisons to other services, costs, and moral issues. Participants argued that constraining choice has a greater impact on those who are less able to advocate for themselves and there were concerns that patients may feel stigmatised or isolated when unable to choose their preferred method. In conclusion, although medical abortion suits most patients, this study highlights arguments for maintaining the option of surgical abortion in the era of telemedicine. More nuanced discussion of the potential benefits and impacts of self-management of medical abortion is needed.

Structural barriers or patient preference? A mixed methods appraisal of medical abortion use in England and Wales.

Although patient choice of abortion method is a key component of quality care, medical abortion (MA) has become the most common method (87%) in England and Wales, as in many countries worldwide. This research aimed to critically examine factors influencing the growth in MA use in England and Wales. Mixed methods were used, combining multi-level regression analysis of national abortion statistics (2011-2020) and key informant interviews with abortion service managers, commissioners, and providers (n=27). Overall trends have been driven by growth in MA use for abortions under 10 weeks in the private non-profit sector. Variation in MA use between patient sub-groups and regions has narrowed over time. Qualitative findings highlight health system constraints that have influenced the shift towards MA, including workforce constraints, infrastructure requirements, provider policies, cost, and commissioning practices involving under-funding and competition, which have caused the private non-profit sector to limit method choice across their services to remain financially viable. While removal of legal restrictions on MA has expanded choice, similar policy progress has not been seen for surgical methods. The study concludes that abortion method choice has been constrained by structural health system factors, with potential negative consequences for service acceptability, inequalities, and patient-centredness.

An assessment of facility readiness for comprehensive abortion care in 12 districts of Pakistan using the WHO Service Availability and Readiness Assessment tool.

Although Pakistan's Essential Package of Health Services was recently updated to include therapeutic and post-abortion care, little is known about current health facility readiness for these services. This study assessed the availability of comprehensive abortion care, and readiness of health facilities to deliver these services, within the public sector in 12 districts of Pakistan. A facility inventory was completed in 2020-2021 using the WHO Service Availability and Readiness Assessment, with a newly developed abortion module. A composite readiness indicator was developed based on national clinical guidelines and previous studies. Just 8.4% of facilities reported offering therapeutic abortion, while 14.3% offered post-abortion care. Misoprostol (75.2%) was the most common method provided by facilities that offer therapeutic abortion, followed by vacuum aspiration (60.7%) and dilatation and curettage (D&C) (59%). Few facilities had all the readiness components required to deliver pharmacological or surgical therapeutic abortion, or post-abortion care (<1%), but readiness was higher in tertiary (22.2%) facilities. Readiness scores were lowest for "guidelines and personnel" (4.1%), and slightly higher for medicines and products (14.3-17.1%), equipment (16.3%) and laboratory services (7.4%). This assessment highlights the potential to increase the availability of comprehensive abortion care in Pakistan, particularly in primary care and in rural areas, to improve the readiness of health facilities to deliver these services, and to phase out non-recommended methods of abortion (D&C). The study also demonstrates the feasibility and utility of adding an abortion module to routine health facility assessments, which can inform efforts to strengthen sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Interviewer effects on abortion reporting: a multilevel analysis of household survey responses in Côte d'Ivoire, Nigeria and Rajasthan, India.

OBJECTIVES: The analysis aimed to assess the scale of interviewer effects on abortion survey responses, to compare interviewer effects between different question wordings and between direct and indirect approaches, and to identify interviewer and interview characteristics that explain interviewer effects on abortion reporting. SETTING: 2018 Performance Monitoring for Action nationally representative household surveys from Côte d'Ivoire, Nigeria and Rajasthan, India. PARTICIPANTS: Survey data from 20 016 interviews with reproductive age (15-49) women, selected using multistage stratified cluster sampling. Data from self-administered interviewer surveys and from a sample of health service delivery points that serve the female survey participants were also included. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were the respondent's own experience of ever 'removing a pregnancy', their closest confidante's experience of pregnancy removal and the respondent's own experience of period regulation. RESULTS: Substantial interviewer effects were observed, ranging from 7% in Côte d'Ivoire to 24% in Nigeria for pregnancy removal. Interviewer effects for survey questions that were designed to ask about abortion in a less stigmatising way were either similar to (9%-26% for confidante-reporting) or higher than (17%-32% for a question about period regulation) the pregnancy removal question. Interviewer and interview characteristics associated with abortion reporting included respondent-interviewer familiarity, the language of interview and the interviewer's comfort asking questions about abortion. CONCLUSION: This study highlights that questions designed to be less stigmatising may increase interviewer effects due to lower comprehension among respondents. Further work is needed to assess question wordings for different contexts. Selecting and training interviewers to ensure comfort asking questions about abortion is important for reproductive health surveys. Challenges for the use of 'insider' interviewers and the management of surveys in countries with high linguistic diversity are also identified.