加拿大报纸支持米非司酮药物流产,以改善AAAQ健康权框架的实现(2015-2019)。

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Womens Health Issues Pub Date : 2023-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.whi.2023.05.008
Tamil Kendall PhD , Pallavi Sriram MD , Amrit Parmar BA , Wendy V. Norman MD, MHSc
{"title":"加拿大报纸支持米非司酮药物流产,以改善AAAQ健康权框架的实现(2015-2019)。","authors":"Tamil Kendall PhD ,&nbsp;Pallavi Sriram MD ,&nbsp;Amrit Parmar BA ,&nbsp;Wendy V. Norman MD, MHSc","doi":"10.1016/j.whi.2023.05.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>In 2015, mifepristone in combination with misoprostol, the international gold standard for medication abortion, was approved for use in Canada. By 2019, all Canadian provinces had included the medication as a publicly insured health benefit.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Our content analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage describes arguments in favor of or against medication abortion and the evolving regulatory framework for mifepristone from 6 months before regulatory approval until the last significant regulatory barrier to use was removed (2015–2019).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Our study found an exceptionally high level of support for the approval of, introduction of, and removal of regulatory barriers to mifepristone for medication abortion. Of 402 pieces, 67% were pro-medication abortion, 25% presented balanced or neutral coverage, and only 8% presented solely anti-medication abortion viewpoints. Of the 761 individuals quoted, more than 90% made positive or neutral statements about medication abortion. Most pieces discussed medication abortion as a health issue and described how liberalization of the regulatory framework would improve abortion availability (68%), accessibility (87%), acceptability (34%), and quality (28%).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Rather than formal balance, which presents contrasting arguments as equally valid even when the scientific evidence for one vastly outweighs the other, our study identified evidentiary balance, in which coverage aligned with the weight of evidence and expert opinion. Our results differ from analyses in other high-income countries (United Kingdom, United States) where media outlets frame abortion in relation to morality or electoral politics rather than as a health issue. The Canadian print media presented overwhelmingly favorable arguments toward the expansion of mifepristone medication abortion and framed the introduction and universal coverage of medication abortion as advancing the “Availability, Accessibility, Acceptability, and Quality” (AAAQ) Right to Health Framework that establishes international human rights standards for health information, facilities, goods, and services.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48039,"journal":{"name":"Womens Health Issues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1049386723001081/pdfft?md5=36454b459400b4547671e4e552556479&pid=1-s2.0-S1049386723001081-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Canadian Newspapers Support Mifepristone Medication Abortion to Improve Fulfillment of the AAAQ Right to Health Framework (2015–2019)\",\"authors\":\"Tamil Kendall PhD ,&nbsp;Pallavi Sriram MD ,&nbsp;Amrit Parmar BA ,&nbsp;Wendy V. Norman MD, MHSc\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.whi.2023.05.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>In 2015, mifepristone in combination with misoprostol, the international gold standard for medication abortion, was approved for use in Canada. By 2019, all Canadian provinces had included the medication as a publicly insured health benefit.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Our content analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage describes arguments in favor of or against medication abortion and the evolving regulatory framework for mifepristone from 6 months before regulatory approval until the last significant regulatory barrier to use was removed (2015–2019).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Our study found an exceptionally high level of support for the approval of, introduction of, and removal of regulatory barriers to mifepristone for medication abortion. Of 402 pieces, 67% were pro-medication abortion, 25% presented balanced or neutral coverage, and only 8% presented solely anti-medication abortion viewpoints. Of the 761 individuals quoted, more than 90% made positive or neutral statements about medication abortion. Most pieces discussed medication abortion as a health issue and described how liberalization of the regulatory framework would improve abortion availability (68%), accessibility (87%), acceptability (34%), and quality (28%).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Rather than formal balance, which presents contrasting arguments as equally valid even when the scientific evidence for one vastly outweighs the other, our study identified evidentiary balance, in which coverage aligned with the weight of evidence and expert opinion. Our results differ from analyses in other high-income countries (United Kingdom, United States) where media outlets frame abortion in relation to morality or electoral politics rather than as a health issue. The Canadian print media presented overwhelmingly favorable arguments toward the expansion of mifepristone medication abortion and framed the introduction and universal coverage of medication abortion as advancing the “Availability, Accessibility, Acceptability, and Quality” (AAAQ) Right to Health Framework that establishes international human rights standards for health information, facilities, goods, and services.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48039,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Womens Health Issues\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1049386723001081/pdfft?md5=36454b459400b4547671e4e552556479&pid=1-s2.0-S1049386723001081-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Womens Health Issues\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1049386723001081\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Womens Health Issues","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1049386723001081","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:2015年,国际药物流产金标准米非司酮联合米索前列醇在加拿大获批准使用。到2019年,加拿大所有省份都将这种药物纳入公共保险健康福利。方法:我们对加拿大报纸报道的内容分析描述了从监管批准前6个月到最后一个重大使用监管障碍被消除(2015-2019),米非司酮的支持或反对药物流产的争论和不断发展的监管框架。结果:我们的研究发现,对米非司酮用于药物流产的批准、引入和消除监管障碍的支持程度异常高。402篇文章中,67%为支持药物流产,25%为平衡或中立报道,仅8%为完全反对药物流产的观点。在引用的761个人中,超过90%的人对药物流产做出了积极或中立的陈述。大多数文章将药物流产作为健康问题进行了讨论,并描述了监管框架的自由化将如何提高流产的可获得性(68%)、可获得性(87%)、可接受性(34%)和质量(28%)。结论:我们的研究确定了证据平衡,即覆盖范围与证据和专家意见的权重一致,而不是正式的平衡,即在一个科学证据远远超过另一个的情况下,将对比的论点视为同样有效。我们的结果与其他高收入国家(英国、美国)的分析不同,在这些国家,媒体将堕胎与道德或选举政治联系起来,而不是作为健康问题。加拿大印刷媒体对扩大米非司酮药物流产提出了压倒性的有利论点,并将药物流产的引入和普遍覆盖定义为促进"可获得性、可获得性、可接受性和质量" (AAAQ)健康权框架,该框架为健康信息、设施、商品和服务建立了国际人权标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Canadian Newspapers Support Mifepristone Medication Abortion to Improve Fulfillment of the AAAQ Right to Health Framework (2015–2019)

Background

In 2015, mifepristone in combination with misoprostol, the international gold standard for medication abortion, was approved for use in Canada. By 2019, all Canadian provinces had included the medication as a publicly insured health benefit.

Methods

Our content analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage describes arguments in favor of or against medication abortion and the evolving regulatory framework for mifepristone from 6 months before regulatory approval until the last significant regulatory barrier to use was removed (2015–2019).

Results

Our study found an exceptionally high level of support for the approval of, introduction of, and removal of regulatory barriers to mifepristone for medication abortion. Of 402 pieces, 67% were pro-medication abortion, 25% presented balanced or neutral coverage, and only 8% presented solely anti-medication abortion viewpoints. Of the 761 individuals quoted, more than 90% made positive or neutral statements about medication abortion. Most pieces discussed medication abortion as a health issue and described how liberalization of the regulatory framework would improve abortion availability (68%), accessibility (87%), acceptability (34%), and quality (28%).

Conclusions

Rather than formal balance, which presents contrasting arguments as equally valid even when the scientific evidence for one vastly outweighs the other, our study identified evidentiary balance, in which coverage aligned with the weight of evidence and expert opinion. Our results differ from analyses in other high-income countries (United Kingdom, United States) where media outlets frame abortion in relation to morality or electoral politics rather than as a health issue. The Canadian print media presented overwhelmingly favorable arguments toward the expansion of mifepristone medication abortion and framed the introduction and universal coverage of medication abortion as advancing the “Availability, Accessibility, Acceptability, and Quality” (AAAQ) Right to Health Framework that establishes international human rights standards for health information, facilities, goods, and services.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
97
审稿时长
32 days
期刊介绍: Women"s Health Issues (WHI) is a peer-reviewed, bimonthly, multidisciplinary journal that publishes research and review manuscripts related to women"s health care and policy. As the official journal of the Jacobs Institute of Women"s Health, it is dedicated to improving the health and health care of all women throughout the lifespan and in diverse communities. The journal seeks to inform health services researchers, health care and public health professionals, social scientists, policymakers, and others concerned with women"s health.
期刊最新文献
A Mixed Methods Longitudinal Investigation of Maternal Depression Across the Perinatal Period Among Mothers Who Gave Birth During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Exploring Consumer Preferences for Pharmacy Provision of Mifepristone in the Human-centered Design Discovery Phase. "Women's Lives Are on the Line, and Our Hands Are Tied": How Television Is Reckoning With a Post-Dobbs America. Women's Health Care Delivery and Coordination After Transitioning From One Electronic Health Record to Another: Perspectives From Staff in the Veterans Health Administration. Protective Factors Associated With Lower Likelihood of Injection Drug Use and Experiencing Overdose Among Incarcerated Women.
×
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