Abortion access for U.S. active-duty servicewomen: A scoping review.

Caitlin Russell, Laura Manzo, Tiara Walz, Andrew Lu, Holly Harner
{"title":"Abortion access for U.S. active-duty servicewomen: A scoping review.","authors":"Caitlin Russell, Laura Manzo, Tiara Walz, Andrew Lu, Holly Harner","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>U.S. active-duty servicewomen experience barriers to abortion care that civilian women do not experience due to military regulations and federal law. This scoping review aims to address this gap in knowledge by evaluating the research in this area.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A scoping review protocol based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines was used to search PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL for peer-reviewed publications and gray literature. Inclusion criteria included (1) abortion access for active-duty servicewomen; (2) knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs regarding abortion for active-duty servicewomen; or (3) the prevalence of abortion among active-duty servicewomen. Quality appraisal was completed according to Let Evidence Guide Every New Decision criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search yielded 811 articles, of which 15 met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Nine were empirical research articles, and six were nonempirical. Overall, 66% (n = 10) had abortion coverage or access as the primary outcome of interest; 73% (n = 11) cited relevant legislation; 80% (n = 12) made policy recommendations; and 40% (n = 6) made future research recommendations. Three themes emerged (1) prevalence estimates, (2) barriers to care, and (3) lack of knowledge and training on military abortion policies.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>More studies with abortion coverage and access for active-duty servicewomen as the primary outcome of interest should be conducted to better understand the scope of the issue and the impact on military readiness and to inform policy makers and future interventions to mitigate barriers to care.</p>","PeriodicalId":93955,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contraception","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110703","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: U.S. active-duty servicewomen experience barriers to abortion care that civilian women do not experience due to military regulations and federal law. This scoping review aims to address this gap in knowledge by evaluating the research in this area.

Study design: A scoping review protocol based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines was used to search PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL for peer-reviewed publications and gray literature. Inclusion criteria included (1) abortion access for active-duty servicewomen; (2) knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs regarding abortion for active-duty servicewomen; or (3) the prevalence of abortion among active-duty servicewomen. Quality appraisal was completed according to Let Evidence Guide Every New Decision criteria.

Results: The search yielded 811 articles, of which 15 met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Nine were empirical research articles, and six were nonempirical. Overall, 66% (n = 10) had abortion coverage or access as the primary outcome of interest; 73% (n = 11) cited relevant legislation; 80% (n = 12) made policy recommendations; and 40% (n = 6) made future research recommendations. Three themes emerged (1) prevalence estimates, (2) barriers to care, and (3) lack of knowledge and training on military abortion policies.

Implications: More studies with abortion coverage and access for active-duty servicewomen as the primary outcome of interest should be conducted to better understand the scope of the issue and the impact on military readiness and to inform policy makers and future interventions to mitigate barriers to care.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国现役女军人的堕胎机会:范围审查》。
目标:由于军事法规和联邦法律的规定,美国现役女军人在接受人工流产护理时会遇到平民妇女不会遇到的障碍。据我们所知,目前还没有任何综述分析过有关这一患者群体的人工流产覆盖范围和获取途径的现有文献。本范围综述旨在通过评估该领域的研究来填补这一知识空白:研究设计:采用基于 PRISMA 指南的范围界定综述协议,在 PubMed、Embase 和 CINAHL 中检索同行评议出版物和灰色文献。纳入标准包括:1)现役女军人的堕胎机会;2)现役女军人对堕胎的认识、态度或信念;或 3)现役女军人的堕胎率。根据 LEGEND 标准完成了质量评估:搜索结果显示,最初有 811 篇文章,其中 15 篇符合纳入本综述的标准。其中 9 篇为经验性研究文章,6 篇为非经验性研究文章。总体而言,66%(n = 10)的文章将人工流产的覆盖率或可及性作为主要关注结果;73%(n = 11)的文章引用了相关立法;80%(n = 12)的文章提出了政策建议,40%(n = 6)的文章提出了未来研究建议。出现了三个主题:1)流行率估计;2)护理障碍;3)缺乏有关军事堕胎政策的知识和培训:免责声明:文中观点和信息仅代表作者个人观点,不代表美国陆军卓越医疗中心、美国陆军训练与理论司令部、陆军部、国防部或美国政府的官方立场。性别语言声明:我们的研究团队承认并尊重能够怀孕和分娩的军人拥有多重身份,并不总是将自己认定为女性。由于我们也认识到女性在军队中只占一小部分,而且经常被边缘化,因此我们在本研究中有意使用 "女军人 "一词,以确保 "女军人 "一词出现在有关军人的文献中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Economic analysis of foregoing Rh immunoglobulin for bleeding in pregnancy <12 weeks gestation. Modeling the impact of decreasing waiting period length for Medicaid sterilization: A multi-site cohort study. Ongoing contraceptive goals of patients who did not achieve desired postpartum permanent contraception prior to hospital discharge. The association of insertion methods on immediate postpartum intrauterine device expulsion rates: A retrospective cohort study. Society of Family Planning Research Practice Support: Strategies and considerations for addressing race and racism in quantitative family planning studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1