Dualities between Tunisian provider beliefs and actions in abortion care.

Sarah Raifman, Selma Hajri, Caitlin Gerdts, Diana Foster
{"title":"Dualities between Tunisian provider beliefs and actions in abortion care.","authors":"Sarah Raifman,&nbsp;Selma Hajri,&nbsp;Caitlin Gerdts,&nbsp;Diana Foster","doi":"10.1080/09688080.2018.1472486","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite Tunisia's historically progressive reproductive health policies, Tunisian women now face significant challenges accessing legal abortion. Through in-depth interviews with providers at six facilities, we explored factors influencing provider attitudes about abortion and provider perspectives about abortion morality, safety, and legality. We found that gatekeepers (counsellors and front office staff) generally believed abortion was immoral, while obstetricians and gynecologists were more likely to support an individual's right to access abortion. However, providers' actions do not necessarily align with their stated beliefs regarding abortion; some providers who said they support abortion access generally held personal beliefs about when and for whom abortion is appropriate which influenced their provision of care. System-level barriers to abortion provision, such as a lack of resources, hinder some providers who may otherwise be willing to provide the service. These system-level barriers may also account for inconsistencies between providers' beliefs and actions related to abortion. Illuminating the complexity in provider beliefs and attitudes about abortion can help us to better understand whether and why abortion care is provided, as well as the factors that ultimately determine whether a woman can obtain an abortion.</p>","PeriodicalId":32527,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Health Matters","volume":"26 52","pages":"47-57"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09688080.2018.1472486","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reproductive Health Matters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09688080.2018.1472486","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Despite Tunisia's historically progressive reproductive health policies, Tunisian women now face significant challenges accessing legal abortion. Through in-depth interviews with providers at six facilities, we explored factors influencing provider attitudes about abortion and provider perspectives about abortion morality, safety, and legality. We found that gatekeepers (counsellors and front office staff) generally believed abortion was immoral, while obstetricians and gynecologists were more likely to support an individual's right to access abortion. However, providers' actions do not necessarily align with their stated beliefs regarding abortion; some providers who said they support abortion access generally held personal beliefs about when and for whom abortion is appropriate which influenced their provision of care. System-level barriers to abortion provision, such as a lack of resources, hinder some providers who may otherwise be willing to provide the service. These system-level barriers may also account for inconsistencies between providers' beliefs and actions related to abortion. Illuminating the complexity in provider beliefs and attitudes about abortion can help us to better understand whether and why abortion care is provided, as well as the factors that ultimately determine whether a woman can obtain an abortion.

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
突尼斯提供者在堕胎护理方面的信念和行动之间的二元性。
尽管突尼斯历来有进步的生殖健康政策,但突尼斯妇女现在在获得合法堕胎方面面临重大挑战。通过对六个机构的提供者进行深入访谈,我们探讨了影响提供者对堕胎态度的因素以及提供者对堕胎道德、安全和合法性的看法。我们发现,看门人(咨询师和前台工作人员)普遍认为堕胎是不道德的,而妇产科医生更有可能支持个人堕胎的权利。然而,提供者的行为并不一定与他们对堕胎的信念一致;一些说他们支持堕胎服务的提供者通常对堕胎的适当时间和对象持有个人信念,这影响了他们提供的护理。提供堕胎服务的系统层面障碍,如缺乏资源,阻碍了一些原本愿意提供服务的提供者。这些制度层面的障碍也可能解释了提供者的信念和与堕胎有关的行动之间的不一致。阐明提供者对堕胎的信念和态度的复杂性可以帮助我们更好地理解是否以及为什么提供堕胎护理,以及最终决定妇女是否可以堕胎的因素。
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
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters ( SRHM) promotes sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) globally through its journal and ''more than a journal'' activities. The Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters (SRHM) journal, formerly Reproductive Health Matters (RHM), is a peer-reviewed, international journal that explores emerging, neglected and marginalised topics and themes across the field of sexual and reproductive health and rights. It aims to publish original, relevant, and contemporary research, particularly from a feminist perspective, that can help inform the development of policies, laws and services to fulfil the rights and meet the sexual and reproductive health needs of people of all ages, gender identities and sexual orientations. SRHM publishes work that engages with fundamental dilemmas and debates in SRHR, highlighting multiple perspectives, acknowledging differences, and searching for new forms of consensus. SRHM strongly encourages research that explores experiences, values, information and issues from the point of view of those whose lives are affected. Key topics addressed in SRHM include (but are not limited to) abortion, family planning, contraception, female genital mutilation, HIV and other STIs, human papillomavirus (HPV), maternal health, SRHR in humanitarian settings, gender-based violence, young people, gender, sexuality and sexual rights.
期刊最新文献
4 Code Work: RAI-MDS, Measurement, Quality, and Work Organization in Long-Term Care Facilities in Ontario 1 Introduction 2 The Dematerialization of Fundamental Nursing Care in an Era of Managerial Reform 11 Seeking Disability Politics in Disability and Health-Related Non-profit Organizations 13 Nail Salons, Toxics, and Health: Organizing for a Better Work Environment
×
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