Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The microeconomics of abortion: A scoping review and analysis of the economic consequences for abortion care-seekers

  • Ernestina Coast ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    e.coast@lse.ac.uk

    Affiliation Department of International Development, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom

    ⨯
  • Samantha R. Lattof,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of International Development, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom

    ⨯
  • Yana van der Meulen Rodgers,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Department of Labor Studies and Employment Relations, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey, United States of America, Department of Women’s and Gender Studies, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Brittany Moore,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Ipas, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Cheri Poss

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Ipas, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America

    ⨯

Abstract

Background

The economic consequences of abortion care and abortion policies for individuals occur directly and indirectly. We lack synthesis of the economic costs, impacts, benefit or value of abortion care at the micro-level (i.e., individuals and households). This scoping review examines the microeconomic costs, benefits and consequences of abortion care and policies.

Methods and findings

Searches were conducted in eight electronic databases and applied inclusion/exclusion criteria using the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews. For inclusion, studies must have examined at least one of the following outcomes: costs, impacts, benefits, and value of abortion care or abortion policies. Quantitative and qualitative data were extracted for descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Of the 230 included microeconomic studies, costs are the most frequently reported microeconomic outcome (n = 180), followed by impacts (n = 84), benefits (n = 39), and values (n = 26). Individual-level costs of abortion-related care have implications for the timing and type of care sought, globally. In contexts requiring multiple referrals or follow-up visits, these costs are multiplied. The ways in which people pay for abortion-related costs are diverse. The intersection between micro-level costs and delay(s) to abortion-related care is substantial. Individuals forego other costs and expenditures, or are pushed further into debt and/or poverty, in order to fund abortion-related care. The evidence base on the economic impacts of policy or law change is from high-income countries, dominated by studies from the United States.

Conclusions

Delays underpinned by economic factors can thwart care-seeking, affect the type of care sought, and impact the gestational age at which care is sought or reached. The evidence base includes little evidence on the micro-level costs for adolescents. Specific sub-groups of abortion care-seekers (transgendered and/or disabled people) are absent from the evidence and it is likely that they may experience higher direct and indirect costs because they may experience greater barriers to abortion care.

Citation: Coast E, Lattof SR, Meulen Rodgers Yvd, Moore B, Poss C (2021) The microeconomics of abortion: A scoping review and analysis of the economic consequences for abortion care-seekers. PLoS ONE 16(6): e0252005. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252005

Editor: Hannah E. Carter, Queensland University of Technology, AUSTRALIA

Received: January 15, 2020; Accepted: May 10, 2021; Published: June 9, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Coast et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding: This work was supported by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, activity number 28438. This funder had no role in the design and development of the manuscript or the decision to publish.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The socio-economic determinants of health and the inequitable distribution of the economic costs and consequences of healthcare are well established. For one type of health care—abortion-related care—the individual-level economic costs and consequences are concentrated among pregnant individuals. The global evidence about the individual-level economics of seeking and procuring abortion-related care has not been gathered and synthesised.

Understanding the microeconomics of abortion-related care allows us to pose, and consider how we might answer, some critical questions, including but not limited to: What does it cost individuals to procure abortion-related care, and do relative costs impact on decision-making about type and timing of care? How and in what ways do the economic consequences of care, or their anticipation, influence the timing and type of care sought, and its longer-term consequences? What economic value or benefit, if any, is attached to abortion-related care?

These questions, and their answers, matter from multiple linked framings of abortion-related care. Framing abortion-related care only as a public health issue—the health consequences of unsafe abortion are profound—means potentially missing critical lenses with important consequences. Issues of in/equity mean that we need to understand how the microeconomics of abortion are distributed within and across populations. Are poorer people more likely to seek less safe abortion because the costs of safer abortion care are beyond their reach? We know that the distribution of economic power is a critical social determinant of health. A reproductive justice perspective, moving beyond the enacting of reproductive rights, can improve the analytic understanding of how abortion-related care intersects with microeconomics. For example, if one effect of abortion criminalization is the higher likelihood of exclusion from safe abortion services of those who are unable to afford them, what are the consequences of differential resources on people’s ability to seek or access abortion-related care?

This systematic mapping of the evidence on the microeconomics of abortion-related care uses four key economic components: costs, impacts, benefits, and values. The framework was developed by the authors to reflect our focus on the economics of abortion, rather than just the finances of abortion. As economics (like sociology) focuses on behaviours as well as money, the goal of our framework is to include outcomes—negative or positive—that go beyond financial outcomes as measured in monetary terms. Economic costs of abortion-related care are the amount paid to obtain abortion care; they do not start at point of treatment and are incurred directly and indirectly throughout the care-seeking trajectory (such as transport, food, accommodation). Access to financial resources, frequently linked to social support, may be critical to a person’s ability to obtain abortion information and services. A pregnancy has short- and long-term direct and indirect costs for individuals. Economic impacts are the economic effect or influence of abortion-related care or policies. Examples include the extent to which the actual or perceived costs of abortion-related care might impact on the type of care sought; and the ways in which abortion policies or laws might lead to changes in the pricing of abortion-related care. Economic benefits are the advantages or profits gained from receiving abortion care or from the implementation of abortion policies. Economic value refers to the importance, worth, welfare gains, or utility from receiving abortion care or the implementation of abortion policies. For example, individuals may value aspects of different types of safe abortion care.

By systematically scoping the global evidence for the first time across these four economic domains, this article establishes the substantive understandings and methodological approaches that have been used to understand the microeconomics of abortion-related care. Mesoeconomic and macroeconomic findings are reported elsewhere as are the links between the economics of abortion and stigma [1–3].

Methods

We conducted a transparent and reproducible scoping review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) tool and reporting guidelines for protocols [4, 5] (S4 Appendix). We did a scoping review rather than a systematic review because we wanted to uncover what is known about the microeconomic consequences of abortion care and abortion policies and anticipated that varied types of evidence would be found. Our scoping review is focused on all abortion-related care, irrespective of its effectiveness and safety. We are centering what people do with respect to seeking abortion-related care, including ineffective actions undertaken to induce an abortion.

The searches, application of in/exclusion criteria, screening and data extraction were conducted using rigorous protocol and data extraction tools [available online—6] for the PICOTS (Patient population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Timing, and Setting) criteria (Table 1). Studies published in peer-reviewed journals on induced abortion and/or post-abortion care (PAC) in any world region were considered, provided that they reported qualitative and/or quantitative data on one of the following microeconomic outcomes of abortion care or abortion policies: costs, impacts, benefits, and value of abortion care or abortion policies.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. PICOTS criteria used in the scoping review.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252005.t001

Eight electronic databases were searched using combinations of relevant search terms (Table 2) adapted to the particulars of each electronic database [6]. We supplemented these searches with expert-recommended articles. We included items in English, French, Spanish, German and Dutch. We conducted the searches and application of inclusion/exclusion criteria according to the PRISMA-ScR flow approach [5]. No assessments of item quality were made, as the purpose of this scoping review is to describe and synthesize the extent of evidence. Therefore, as a scoping review that explicitly excludes a quality assessment of included studies, we do not “weigh” the evidence presented by authors in an included item. Where authors of an included study inferred an economic outcome [cost, impact, benefit, or value] on the basis of their evidence, the findings in this manuscript explicitly state that this inference or hypothesis belongs to the author(s) of the included study.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Search terms and their combinations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252005.t002

We extracted data into Excel for five randomly selected studies in order to assure quality in data extraction. Following this check for quality assurance, we divided the remaining included studies for data extraction. As a scoping review, we did not assess the risk of bias of individual studies.

This analysis synthesizes the microeconomic evidence base and identifies evidence gaps on the costs and benefits of abortion to individuals seeking abortions and their households. We report the data using a systematic narrative synthesis in which the results are presented narratively and organized thematically, supplemented with tables of descriptive statistics on included studies and their outcomes.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Our search generated 19,653 items for screening (Fig 1). After duplicate removal, the 16,918 remaining items were title and abstract (TIAB) screened for inclusion. We determined eligibility of all items, and unclear items were discussed. Where exclusion could not be determined on TIAB, authors screened the full text. Decisions were made in favor of an inclusive approach where questions remained; 230 studies met all inclusion criteria.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Screening results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252005.g001

Among the countries covered in the 230 studies on the microeconomics of abortion, more than a quarter of all the studies (64/230) focused exclusively on the United States of America (USA), and an additional five multi-country studies included the USA (Table 3). This dominance of the USA in studies of abortion reflects political attention, data availability, the institutional affiliation of authors, the location of funding and other resources for conducting studies, and our search strategy languages.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Included studies by region and country.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252005.t003

After the USA, the country with the most coverage in the final inventory of studies was India (n = 18). Similar numbers of studies have focused on countries in Africa (n = 45) and Asia (n = 40). Relatively few studies have focused on countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, and noticeably absent with just a few exceptions (including Egypt, Iran, and Israel) are studies in the Middle East and North Africa.

The majority of studies were quantitative, with 92 studies relying exclusively on quantitative methods and another 73 studies including both quantitative and qualitative methods (Table 4). Nearly three-quarters of the lead authors were presumed to be women. Studies ranged in their level of geographic coverage, with the majority conducted at either a sub-national or health facility level. Study populations were most likely to be based on an individual’s status as someone seeking abortion care.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 4. Characteristics of included studies [n = 230].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252005.t004

We extracted data on the costs, impacts, benefits, and values of abortion services and abortion policies. Costs were reported most frequently (n = 180), followed by impact (n = 84), benefits (n = 39) and value (n = 26). To facilitate narrative analysis, we merged studies on benefits and values.

Microeconomic costs

Microeconomic costs of abortion-related care (S1 Appendix) were the most frequently recorded outcome in our review. Many studies did not explicitly set out to study micro-level costs but include valuable evidence—quantitative and qualitative—underscoring the important role that economic costs play in trajectories to abortion-related care. The research design and level of detail relating to micro-level costs is heterogeneous, from cross-sectional direct costs of medical abortion drugs via telemedicine [7] to prospective direct and indirect costs of post-abortion compared to safe abortion care [8]. Seeking abortion-related care has—frequently substantial—costs for individuals, with potential implications for the timing and type of care sought, globally. Which costs are included, whether direct/indirect, is often unclear; in facility-based studies there tends to be a narrow focus on costs to, and at, the facility. Our review suggests that a much broader range of expenses and costs are important. We present the comparator costs when they are provided by the original study. Although rarely reported, respondents might not know the costs of their care [8, 9] or how costs were calculated [10].

The micro-level costs of abortion-related care are perhaps demonstrated most clearly in evidence from settings where abortion-related services are (theoretically) free-of-charge, including in Bangladesh [11], Canada [12] and South Africa [13], but where care involves direct or indirect costs. Limited evidence from India suggests that costs are linked to conditionality of care, with abortion services in the public sector provided for free only if the woman or her husband accepts some form of contraception, usually sterilization or an intrauterine device, post-abortion [14].

A subset of evidence considers individual difficulties to afford or pay costs of abortion-related care. In Kazakhstan, 40% of women identified ‘financial problems’ as the ‘main difficulty’ in obtaining an abortion [15]. Studies from the USA, reflecting the health insurance context, find that it was somewhat or very difficult for 41% of respondents to pay for the procedure (52% among women not using health insurance) [16].

Some evidence considers the pregnancy outcomes for individuals unable to afford the costs of abortion-related care. In Thailand, three out of a sample of 30 women had abandoned attempts to obtain a termination because of the costs involved [17]. In Nepal, a landmark 2009 Supreme Court decision centered on a poor, rural woman who was forced to give birth to her sixth child due to her inability to afford the required fees for an abortion [18]. In the USA, among minors who identified as black or Hispanic, who received public health insurance (Medicaid), or who had lower educational achievement, the risk of unintended birth was higher than among the general adolescent population. The authors suggest that it is the financial and time costs imposed by waiting periods with mandated multiple visits that may alter the pregnancy outcome [19].

Indirect costs.

The reasons for indirect costs of abortion are wide-ranging, including: companion costs [20]; childcare; overnight accommodation [21]; travel costs [22]; taking time off work; consumables (e.g. toiletries) [23]; and unofficial payments [24, 25]. In contexts where women have to seek multiple referrals or attend follow-up visits, these costs are multiplied [26]. Travel costs represented the most frequently cited indirect abortion-related costs at the micro level and in a wide range of contexts including in South Africa [27], the USA [28, 29] and Canada [30].

Relative costs.

Evidence that included relative comparator costs (e.g. average daily wage or monthly salary) was more meaningful than evidence that did not. Evidence from Poland showed that illegal abortions cost 2000–4000 PLN (US$ 500–1000), at a time when the average monthly Polish salary was 2000 PLN [31]. In Nepal, the basic fee (excluding other related costs) was Rs 645, representing approximately five days’ wages for a female laborer [32]. Some authors reflect on how the relative costs of abortion-related care are likely to impact on the type of care sought. In Burkina Faso abortion costs ranged from a few thousand CFA francs for traditional abortifacients and up to 200,000 CFA francs for curettage in hygienic conditions. The monthly wage for a maid or caretaker is 20,000–40,000 CFA francs meaning that safer abortion methods were unaffordable for the poorest population groups [33]. In Kenya, where the cost of an abortion ranges from KS 60 for quinine purchased at a pharmacy to 5,000 KS (US$ 60) from a doctor, evidence suggests that even where women knew about a potentially safer option for abortion, the cost was prohibitive and limited them to less expensive options because most women earned less than 220 KS (US$ 2.50) per day [34].

Resources for costs.

People pay for abortion-related costs in diverse ways. In the USA, abortion care funds represent an important source for some women [16, 29]. In some contexts—linked to an inability to disclose their abortions, or an absence of other financial sources—women sought financing from credit/loans [35] and informal lenders [36]. In Kenya, patients unable to access a facility’s required mode of payment (such as mobile money or the use of a credit/debit card) used brokers who charged a fee [23]. Women often had to borrow from their social networks (male partners, family, friends) in Nigeria [9], the USA [37, 38], Northern Ireland [36], Romania [39], Australia [20], Vietnam [40] and Brazil [41].

Men’s roles in financing—knowingly or otherwise—abortion-related care are important across settings. In Zambia, few men who financially supported women seeking PAC were told the purpose of the care they were supporting [42]. In Australia, some women’s ex-partners knowingly paid the abortion fee [20].

Comparing costs of types of abortion-related care-seeking.

Many of the research designs are comparative in nature, often comparing costs of various types of care seeking, including: different types of medical abortion drugs [7, 43]; medical abortion self-care compared to medical abortion formal care [44]; medical compared to surgical abortion [45–48]; safe abortion compared to PAC for induced abortion [8, 9, 24, 49]; and PAC for induced abortion compared to PAC for spontaneous abortion [50–52]. Two patterns emerge: micro-level costs for PAC for any induced abortion compared to care for a spontaneous abortion are substantially higher, often as a result of complex care-seeking trajectories due to the need for secrecy in restrictive settings; and, the costs of PAC for induced abortion are higher than those of safe abortion [24].

Costs and delays.

The intersection in the evidence between micro-level costs and delay(s) to abortion-related care, both induced abortion and PAC for induced abortion, is substantial.

In Zambia, the financial costs of seeking an abortion played a role in the timing and complexity of women’s care-seeking trajectories, specifically finding money for transport [53]. Women who cannot access abortion in Northern Ireland must travel elsewhere to obtain one and pay as private patients; difficulties in obtaining funds can also lead to delays in obtaining an abortion, thereby increasing its cost [36]. In Kenya, a requirement that patients paid prior to each procedure restricted access to timely care, and inability to pay for services led to multiple referrals [23]. In the USA, health insurance processes and coverage played a role in influencing delays. In one study, although 59.6% of women had insurance, over half of participants paid out-of-pocket, and women with insurance reported complex processes and delays to obtain coverage [37]. In Colombia, women who were able to access a reproductive rights advocacy organisation were eventually able to obtain full insurance coverage, though they had their abortions later than they had desired [54].

Costs and type of care sought.

Actual and/or perceived costs of different types of abortion-related care impact care-seeking in a wide range of contexts. In Hong Kong, among adolescents and young women who had an illegal and unsafe abortion, the cost of safe abortion services was of concern to all the respondents [55]. In India, cost of services determined the choice of facility; women for whom cost was a concern sought care from those perceived to provide cheaper services, even when women had concerns about the provider’s technical skills [56]. In Kenya, pregnancy termination in hospital settings and by ‘high-profile’ providers was considered very costly so women seek inexpensive but unsafe providers [57]. In Australia, women reported various reasons for not using surgical abortion services, despite the close proximity of services, including cost [58].

Individual characteristics and costs of abortion-related care.

The evidence base is heavily dominated by findings about adult women; we know less about costs as they pertain to adolescents [55, 59–61]. This is an important evidence gap because, globally, adolescents are less likely to be financially independent (or have ability to access sources of financing) compared to older women. Younger people may be charged higher rates for abortion-related services than older people. In India, because the law requires a guardian’s consent for all medical care, including abortion services, for individuals aged below 18 years, girls reported that private practitioners were willing to forego this requirement in return for a fee up to five times the normal rate [62]. Evidence from the USA suggests that the costs of abortions were highest for very young adolescents (11–13 years); the authors suggest that this age group has ‘significant difficulty’ acquiring the funds needed for abortion procedures [63].

Age is just one factor, however, and individual characteristics can have substantial implications for abortion-related care costs. This diverse body of evidence underscores cross-cutting themes of in/equity, in/equality, in/justice and power in accessing and paying for abortion-related care. In some settings marital status is important: in India, unmarried women are vulnerable to unsafe abortions because of concerns about cost [64]. Migrant status impacts the costs and types of abortion-related care that women know about, seek and access [65], in countries as diverse as Guadeloupe [44], Great Britain [66], and Thailand [67].

Provider assessments of ability to pay are observed in many contexts, including Zambia [24], Chile [68, 69] and India [70]. However, differential provider pricing based on an ability to pay does not mean that wealthier women always pay more. In some settings it is the poorest (who may also be young, unmarried, undocumented, less educated) who pay the most for abortion-related care. In Burkina Faso, women from low-income households paid the highest amount for the abortion procedure and complications treatment [52]. Factors such as place of residence [31, 71, 72], occupational status [73], ethnicity [74], education [75, 76], and HIV status [17] also impact either the costs, or the ability to pay the costs, of abortion-related care. Evidence from the USA shows how state-level variation in changing Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider (TRAP) laws, the primary purpose of which is to limit abortion access, can have differential cost implications across multiple intersections [77].

Interventions to assist with costs.

Interventions to assist with the costs of abortion-related care ranged from informal practices such as the provision of free services on a case-by-case basis to young Ghanaians who do not have money to pay [59], to informal community support systems in Myanmar for transport and a fund with donations for treatment of poor patients [78], to more formal clinic loan arrangements in Australia [21], to sliding fee scales in Mexico City [79], and American funds to assist women with abortion-related care costs [63].

Microeconomic impacts

To describe the evidence base on the microeconomic impacts of abortion (S2 Appendix), we organize our analysis by research design. There are five main types of research design or evidence—with varying levels of inference. (i) Prospective research designs generating evidence from individuals at more than one point in time across their abortion trajectory. (ii) Analytic approaches to understand the impacts associated with policy and/or law changes. (iii) Studies that demonstrate (usually retrospective at the time of, or shortly afterwards, abortion) the economic impacts of abortion-related care costs. (iv) Studies comparing the economic impacts of different types of abortion care-seeking, including: medical compared to surgical abortion; PAC for induced abortion compared to spontaneous abortion; and, safe abortion compared to PAC for induced abortion. (v) Finally, studies that identify women’s reasons for abortion (usually retrospective) can be used to infer the anticipated impacts of abortion, and give insights into the broad range of economic-related impacts that people anticipate as a result of having an abortion. Just one study explicitly sought to understand women’s future aspirations as a result of having an abortion.

Prospective studies.

There are a limited number of studies which use a prospective design; they demonstrate the potential power to understand how the overall costs of abortion-related care evolve over time. In Zambia, a prospective study showed how factors (age, wealth, education, marital status) intersected to influence not only how individuals financed their care, but also how this had implications for the type of care sought (safe abortion vs. PAC for induced abortion). Delays in fundraising increased both the cost and the risk of the procedure [8]. In Uganda, unsafe abortion resulted in deterioration in either the woman’s or her family’s economic circumstances, including: lost economic assets, incurred debt, lower consumption, increased work, or job loss [75].

Analytic approaches to understand the impacts associated with policy and/or law changes.

These studies are predominantly USA-based [35, 38, 77, 80–83], with limited evidence from elsewhere [36, 84–86]. Qualitative evidence from low-income women who had abortions concludes that restrictive coverage policies appear to force women to take measures to raise money for an abortion that may have multiple consequences for health, wellbeing, and short and longer-term financial instability. These consequences then increase the difficulty of implementing an abortion decision. The authors identify ‘ripple effects‘ for families of women seeking abortion services, and hypothesize that low-income abortion clients in states without public health insurance coverage of abortion experience more emotional and financial harm than clients in states where coverage is available [35].

A systematic review of USA TRAP laws found that these laws need not actually close clinics to have an impact. Laws that increase service costs or decrease availability of appointment slots could increase the time it takes to obtain an abortion. An increase in gestational age at presentation may limit the number of providers willing to perform an abortion (particularly if the pregnancy has entered the second trimester) and increase out-of-pocket costs to patients. The authors hypothesize that while women with adequate resources are generally able to obtain an abortion with minimal difficulty, regardless of local policies, access-oriented barriers to abortion may introduce special challenges to low-income, young, and/or rural women who may be less able to manage increases in cost and distance [77].

A mixed-methods study of how women in the Republic of Ireland sought abortion services under conditions of restrictive laws concludes that these laws forced women into ‘reproductive labor’ [36]. A review of studies in Latin American found that requirements of prescriptions for medical abortion are a barrier that encourage use of informal, often more costly, sources of medical abortion [85]. In Benin, misoprostol was sought in pharmaceutical markets to avoid navigating the logistics of having to obtain a prescription [86].

Studies on the economic impacts of abortion-related care costs.

These studies (usually retrospective at the time of, or shortly afterwards, abortion) identify a range of (often multiple) impacts in diverse contexts, including: education [24, 61, 87, 88]; employment/work/income [24, 40, 89–91]; foregone expenditures or increased debt and/or poverty [52, 92–94]; and, costs to mental health [16].

Studies comparing the economic impacts of different types of abortion care-seeking.

Studies in this category include: medical compared to surgical abortion [90, 91]; PAC for induced abortion compared to spontaneous abortion [52, 95]; and, safe abortion compared to PAC for induced abortion [8]. Evidence from African countries comparing the economic impact of post-abortion care for induced abortion with either spontaneous abortion [52, 95] or safe abortion [8, 24] shows in all cases higher microeconomic impacts for PAC compared to other care-seeking.

Four studies—all from the USA—identify the impact of economic costs of abortion-seeking on delays to care-seeking and continuing a pregnancy [35, 82, 96, 97]. Delays linked to difficulties in navigating insurance coverage, referral, securing costs were all implicated in these studies. Other studies have uncovered further evidence on how economic impacts are implicated in delays to abortion care-seeking [27, 92, 97–99]. In Australia, women who experienced difficulties in financing the abortion had significantly higher odds of presenting for care at later than 9 weeks gestation [92].

Studies that explore reasons for abortion.

Usually retrospective, these studies can be used to infer the anticipated economic impacts of having an abortion. Reasons reported in the evidence from diverse contexts includes: education [40, 89, 100–102], employment/occupation [40, 89, 100], wealth/poverty [39], caring for dependents [103], current and future relationships [100], and wellbeing of pre-existing children [10, 100]. However, perceived economic impacts (and reasons for having abortion) are rarely singular and are frequently intertwined [88, 103–105].

Finally, one study explicitly sought to understand women’s future aspirations as a result of having had an abortion [106]. The authors generated evidence on women’s one-year plans post-abortion among four groups: First Trimesters (presented in the first trimester, received abortion), Near-Limits (presented up to 2 weeks under the limit, received abortion), Non-Parenting Turnaways (included Turnaways who subsequently had an abortion elsewhere, reported that they had miscarried, or placed the child for adoption) and Parenting Turnaways (women with children who presented up to 3 weeks over the facility’s gestational age limit, were turned away). One-year plans were related to areas including education, employment and change in residence. First Trimesters and Near-Limits were over 6 times as likely as Parenting Turnaways to report aspirational one-year plans. Among all plans on which achievement was measurable, Near-Limits and Non-Parenting Turnaways were more likely to have both an aspirational plan and to have achieved it than Parenting Turnaways [106].

Microeconomic benefits and values

Microeconomic benefits (advantages) and values (importance, worth, welfare gains, utility) include diverse factors of intrinsic worth at the individual level. Very little evidence specifically uses the language of the economic benefits and values of abortion; much of the evidence included here is based on interpretation of relevant evidence. We identify three groups of studies on the microeconomic benefits and values of abortion-related care (S3 Appendix): (i) the ways in which laws and policies, including financing and insurance, have benefits and values to women; (ii) the benefits and values of different types of abortion-related care; and (iii) evidence of benefits and values derived from women’s reasons for having an abortion.

Benefits and values of financing.

This evidence—specifically insurance—is USA-based and limited to two studies. Qualitative evidence from low-income women shows that when full coverage of abortion in Medicaid is available, there is ‘rarely a scramble for money that provokes feelings of indignity or delays abortion care’ (p.1582) [35].

Benefits and values of different types of abortion-related care.

This evidence either compares surgical and medical abortion [13, 58, 85, 107–109] or considers the perceived benefits of mHealth/telemedicine interventions [110, 111]. In the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, a study of women who requested at-home medical abortion through online telemedicine suggests that women with few economic and social resources valued the lower costs of telemedicine compared to having to travel for an abortion [110].

Benefits and values derived from women’s reasons for having an abortion.

Evidence in this category relates to a range of factors, including: economic in/ability to afford or cope with a/nother child; pregnancy timing; costs of pregnancy/childbirth (distinct from costs of a child); partner and others’ influences; positive implications for existing children; avoidance of health-related issues; avoiding pregnancy at a young age; continuation of education; and sex-selection.

There is substantial evidence globally about the economic benefits and values of avoiding having a/nother child [67, 93, 100, 102, 103, 112–115]. Particularly among adolescents and younger women, the ability to continue with or pursue education was an important benefit of abortion in diverse settings: USA [116], Ghana [100], Brazil [87], New Zealand [117], Guadeloupe [118], and India [62].

Relationship issues, whether to avoid violence in a controlling relationship in the United Kingdom (UK) [66], avoid becoming a second wife in Ghana [100], or to end a relationship due to pregnancy in Colombia [54], are layered into the benefits and values that women describe. For unmarried women, whether for issues of stigma in Indonesia [119] or because single motherhood was unaffordable in the USA [116], their marital status further added to the impacts of abortion.

Two studies articulated the benefits and values in terms of the positive implications for existing children of individuals who have an abortion in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland [110] and India [62]. The value of sex selective abortion is inferred—not based on people’s reported views—by authors of two studies from Canada [120] and France [121]. Many individuals may perceive or experience multiple intersecting and overlapping benefits and values from abortion [38, 94, 116, 122].

The benefits and values of identity maintenance as a result of abortion are also evidenced [119, 123]. In an Australian study that interviewed women seeking abortion services, the most important change reported by the women was an increased capacity to run their own lives. Women discovered that they could make and carry out difficult decisions, and that they could alter the course of events and exert their wishes over their destiny [123].

Discussion

Although relatively few micro-level studies are defined explicitly by their authors or their methodology as “economic” studies, our review shows that there is a wealth of economically relevant information that can be gleaned from the evidence base. We draw out the substantive and methodological implications of our results for future research and identify some of the evidence gaps.

At the microeconomic level, the interplays between economics and delays to abortion-related care are striking. Across diverse contexts and populations, economic factors influence delays to decision-making about abortion-related care, attempts to seek care and the receipt of care. The Three Delays Model [124], which was originally developed for maternal healthcare seeking has been adapted and applied to abortion-related care [54, 125], offers a framework that could be more fully exploited in abortion-related care research. By unpacking the points at which economic factors introduce or compound delays to abortion-related care, greater insight into the points at which information and services might be better designed to reduce delays can be achieved. By further unpacking the intersections of these economic factors, we can better understand the ways in which health systems and contexts reproduce injustices and inequities. For example, it is often poorer individuals and/or adolescents who are least likely to be able to navigate or surmount economic barriers to abortion-related care.

Delays underpinned by economic factors can thwart care-seeking, affect the type of care sought, and impact the gestational age at which care is sought or reached. Although rarely explicitly included in evidence, the timing of confirmation of pregnancy is also likely to be strongly influenced by intersecting economic factors. We continue to know very little about the ways in which economic factors (including perceptions of economic factors) intersect with concepts of risk/safety and quality of care to affect abortion-related care-seeking and its timing. The limited evidence base suggests that the microeconomic costs of abortion impact on decision-making about the type of abortion care sought. In contexts where less safe abortion methods are cheaper than safer alternatives, there are profound implications for health outcomes.

Our scoping review identifies multiple gaps in our understanding of, and the evidence base for, the economics of abortion. The self-use/-management of medical abortion is tightly connected to the economics that surround it. Many gaps remain in our evidence base around the microeconomic impacts of abortion, including the indirect economic impact of abortion-related care and its longer-term economic impacts. We know very little about how the un/supportability or un/wantedness or un/plannedness or ambivalence around pregnancy intersects with economic benefits and values at the micro-level. We continue to know very little about the ways in which—conceptually separate from delays but linked in terms of health outcomes—economic factors intersect with concepts of abortion risk/safety and quality of care.

Methodologically, we know relatively little about the individual-level economic burden of seeking and procuring abortion. Particularly facility-based studies focus on treatment costs, however costs are incurred directly and indirectly throughout the treatment pathway (e.g. transport, food, accommodation, loss of income). The use of non-financial measures to assess the micro-level costs of abortion-related care is important, given that respondents might not know the costs of their care. The limited prospective evidence base suggests that there are likely substantial post-facility economic costs and impacts. Another knowledge gap is the extent—over time—of financial duress for abortion care-seekers and the people who support them [35]. In addition, very limited work has explored how women feel about having to obtain economic resources for abortion-related care from others.

There is great heterogeneity in what is in/excluded in understandings of individual costs and impacts in individual studies; the evidence base would benefit from a broader understanding of in/direct costs—studies that focus solely on what abortion seekers pay underestimate the total costs (such as lost income or earnings and unofficial payments). The inadequacies of data on reported costs for abortion-related care are an important methodological issue that is rarely tackled or documented. The inclusion of comparators such as average monthly earning (not simply conversion of reported costs to US$) would benefit the evidence base, in order to situate the relative economic consequences of abortion-related care-seeking. Our review suggests that the field would benefit from greater harmonization of, and transparency about, the types of costs that are in/excluded. There are hints in the evidence that the changing architecture of financial systems will need to be accounted for in the evidence base; for example, the use of non-cash payment systems (debit/credit cards, mobile money) may lead to the increasing exclusion of individuals who operate in a cash-based economy.

Rarely are the conditional contexts of abortion-related care explicitly considered; limited evidence suggests that in some contexts the economic costs or impacts are linked to conditionality of care (such as acceptance of long-acting reversible contraception). Specific sub-groups of abortion care-seekers are not present in the evidence base—transgendered and/or disabled people—and given that they may experience greater barriers to abortion care, it is likely that they may experience higher direct and indirect costs. Finally, the microeconomics of second trimester abortion-related care are rarely explored, which is a substantial gap given the critical role of delays in abortion care-seeking.

The evidence base around the economic impacts of abortion policy or law change is entirely based on findings from high-income countries, dominated by studies in the USA. More generally, economic impact evidence from low- and middle-income countries is limited to findings from a few countries. Many gaps remain in our evidence base around the microeconomic impacts of abortion, including the indirect economic impact of abortion-related care and the longer-term economic impacts—both positive and negative—of abortion-related care.

Our scoping review is limited in its purview, excluding grey literature, published literature outside of peer-reviewed journals and relevant literature published in languages other than English, French, Spanish, German or Dutch. Nonetheless, it has highlighted many lacunae—geographically, substantively and methodologically. Our review underscores the critical importance of economic factors for people’s abortion-related care-seeking. Whether framed by the social determinants of health, structural violence [126] or by an issue of reproductive justice, it is clear that if the economic dimension of abortion-related care-seeking is not taken into account by policies, laws, and health systems, then the outcomes will continue to be inequitable and unjust.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Summary of studies reporting microeconomic costs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252005.s001

(DOCX)

S2 Appendix. Summary of studies reporting microeconomic impacts.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252005.s002

(DOCX)

S3 Appendix. Summary of studies reporting microeconomic benefits/value.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252005.s003

(DOCX)

S4 Appendix. Preferred reporting items of systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252005.s004

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Elaine Zundl, Lisbeth Gall, and Joe Strong for their assistance with screening and data extraction.

References

  1. 1. Lattof SR, Coast E, Rodgers YvdM, Moore B, Poss C. The mesoeconomics of abortion: A scoping review and analysis of the economic effects of abortion on health systems. PloS one. 2020;15(11):e0237227. pmid:33147223
  2. 2. Moore B, Poss C, Coast E, Lattof SR, van der Meulen Rodgers Y. The economics of abortion and its links with stigma: A secondary analysis from a scoping review on the economics of abortion. PloS one. 2021;16(2):e0246238. pmid:33600471
  3. 3. Rodgers YvdM, Coast E, Lattof SR, Poss C, Moore B. The macroeconomics of abortion: A scoping review and analysis of the costs and outcomes. PLOS ONE (under review). 2020.
  4. 4. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic reviews. 2015;4(1):1–9. pmid:25554246
  5. 5. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine. 2018;169(7):467–73. pmid:30178033
  6. 6. Coast E, Lattof SR, van der Meulen Rodgers Y, Moore B. Economics of abortion: a scoping review protocol. BMJ open. 2019;9(7):e029939. pmid:31366662
  7. 7. Murtagh C, Wells E, Raymond EG, Coeytaux F, Winikoff B. Exploring the feasibility of obtaining mifepristone and misoprostol from the internet. Contraception. 2018;97(4):287–91. pmid:29030227
  8. 8. Moore AM, Dennis M, Anderson R, Bankole A, Abelson A, Greco G, et al. Comparing women’s financial costs of induced abortion at a facility vs. seeking treatment for complications from unsafe abortion in Zambia. Reproductive Health Matters. 2018;26(52):138–50. pmid:30388961
  9. 9. Prada E, Bankole A, Oladapo OT, Awolude OA, Adewole IF, Onda T. Maternal Near-Miss Due to Unsafe Abortion and Associate Short-Term Health and Socio-Economic Consequences in Nigeria. African Journal of Reproductive Health / La Revue Africaine de la Santé Reproductive. 2015;19(2):52–62.
  10. 10. Foster AM, LaRoche KJ, El-Haddad J, DeGroot L, El-Mowafi IM. "If I ever did have a daughter, I wouldn’t raise her in New Brunswick:” exploring women’s experiences obtaining abortion care before and after policy reform. Contraception. 2017;95(5):477–84. pmid:28232129
  11. 11. Banerjee SK, Kumar R, Warvadekar J, Manning V, Andersen KL. An exploration of the socio-economic profile of women and costs of receiving abortion services at public health facilities of Madhya Pradesh, India. BMC health services research. 2017;17(1):223. Epub 2017/03/23. pmid:28320385.
  12. 12. Sethna C, Doull M. Spatial disparities and travel to freestanding abortion clinics in Canada. Women’s Studies International Forum. 2013;38:52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2013.02.001.
  13. 13. Gresh A, Maharaj P. A qualitative assessment of the acceptability and potential demand for medical abortion among university students in Durban, South Africa. The European journal of contraception & reproductive health care: the official journal of the European Society of Contraception. 2011;16(2):67–75. Epub 2011/01/26. pmid:21261553.
  14. 14. Duggal R. The political economy of abortion in India: cost and expenditure patterns. Reproductive Health Matters. 2004;12:130–7. pmid:15938166
  15. 15. Agadjanian V. Is "Abortion Culture" Fading in the Former Soviet Union? Views about Abortion and Contraception in Kazakhstan. Studies in Family Planning. 2002;33(3):237–48. pmid:12385085
  16. 16. Jones RK, Upadhyay UD, Weitz TA. At What Cost? Payment for Abortion Care by U.S. Women. Women’s Health Issues. 2013;23(3):e173–8. pmid:23660430
  17. 17. de Bruyn M. Safe Abortion for HIV-Positive Women with Unwanted Pregnancy: A Reproductive Right. Reproductive Health Matters. 2003;11(22):152–61. pmid:14708406
  18. 18. Wu W-J, Maru S, Regmi K, Basnett I. Abortion care in Nepal, 15 years after legalization: Gaps in access, equity, and quality. Health and human rights. 2017;19(1):221. pmid:28630554
  19. 19. Coles MS, Makino KK, Stanwood NL, Dozier A, Klein JD. How Are Restrictive Abortion Statutes Associated With Unintended Teen Birth? Journal of Adolescent Health. 2010;47(2):160–7. pmid:20638008
  20. 20. Doran FM, Hornibrook J. Barriers around access to abortion experienced by rural women in New South Wales, Australia. Rural & Remote Health. 2016;16(1):3538–49. pmid:26987999
  21. 21. Doran F, Hornibrook J. Rural New South Wales women’s access to abortion services: highlights from an exploratory qualitative study. The Australian journal of rural health. 2014;22(3):121–6. Epub 2014/07/22. pmid:25039846.
  22. 22. Díaz-Olavarrieta C, Cravioto VM, Villalobos A, Deeb-Sossa N, García L, García SG. Mexico City’s Legal Abortion Program: health workers’ experiences. Revista Panamericana de Salud Publica. 2012;32(6):399–404. pmid:23370182
  23. 23. Mutua MM, Manderson L, Musenge E, Achia TNO. Policy, law and post-abortion care services in Kenya. PloS one. 2018;13(9):18. pmid:30240408
  24. 24. Leone T, Coast E, Parmar D, Vwalika B. The individual level cost of pregnancy termination in Zambia: a comparison of safe and unsafe abortion. Health Policy & Planning. 2016;31(7):825–33. pmid:26879090
  25. 25. Comendant R. A project to improve the quality of abortion services in Moldova. Reproductive Health Matters. 2005;13(26):93–100. pmid:16291490
  26. 26. Grossman D, Ellertson C, Grimes DA, Walker D. Routine follow-up visits after first-trimester induced abortion. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2004;103(4):738–45. Epub 2004/03/31. pmid:15051567.
  27. 27. Cooper D, Dickson K, Blanchard K, Cullingworth L, Mavimbela N, von Mollendorf C, et al. Medical abortion: the possibilities for introduction in the public sector in South Africa [corrected] [published erratum appears in REPROD HEALTH MATTERS 2006 May;14(27):5]. Reproductive Health Matters. 2005;13(26):35–43. pmid:16291484
  28. 28. Brown RW, Jewell RT. The Impact of Provider Availability on Abortion Demand. Contemporary Economic Policy. 1996;14(2):95–106. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291465-7287. pmid:0384757.
  29. 29. Foster DG, Kimport K. Who Seeks Abortions at or After 20 Weeks? Perspectives on Sexual & Reproductive Health. 2013;45(4):210–8. pmid:24188634
  30. 30. Sethna C, Doull M. Far From Home? A Pilot Study Tracking Women’s Journeys to a Canadian Abortion Clinic. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada. 2007;29(8):640–7. pmid:17714617
  31. 31. Girard F, Nowicka W. Clear and Compelling Evidence: The Polish Tribunal on Abortion Rights. Reproductive Health Matters. 2002;10(19):22–30. pmid:12369330
  32. 32. Thapa S, Poudel J, Padhye S. Triaging patients with post-abortion complications: a prospective study in Nepal. Journal of health, population, and nutrition. 2004;22(4):383–98. Epub 2005/01/25. pmid:15663171.
  33. 33. Rossier C. Abortion: An Open Secret? Abortion and Social Network Involvement in Burkina Faso. Reproductive Health Matters. 2007;15(30):230–8. pmid:17938091
  34. 34. Marlow HM, Wamugi S, Yegon E, Fetters T, Wanaswa L, Msipa-Ndebele S. Women’s perceptions about abortion in their communities: perspectives from western Kenya. Reproductive Health Matters. 2014;22(43):149–58. pmid:24908466
  35. 35. Dennis A, Manski R, Blanchard K. Does Medicaid Coverage Matter? A Qualitative Multi-State Study of Abortion Affordability for Low-income Women. Journal of Health Care for the Poor & Underserved. 2014;25(4):1571–85. pmid:25418228
  36. 36. Bloomer F, O’Dowd K. Restricted access to abortion in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland: exploring abortion tourism and barriers to legal reform. Culture, Health & Sexuality. 2014;16(4):366–80. pmid:24617662
  37. 37. Blanchard K, Meadows JL, Gutierrez HR, Hannum CPS, Douglas-Durham EF, Dennis AJ. Mixed-methods investigation of women’s experiences with second-trimester abortion care in the Midwest and Northeast United States. Contraception. 2017;96(6):401–10. pmid:28867439
  38. 38. Jerman J, Frohwirth L, Kavanaugh ML, Blades N. Barriers to Abortion Care and Their Consequences For Patients Traveling for Services: Qualitative Findings from Two States. Perspectives on Sexual & Reproductive Health. 2017;49(2):95–102. pmid:28394463
  39. 39. David HP, Baban A. Women’s health and reproductive rights: Romanian experience. Patient Education & Counseling. 1996;28(3):235–45. pmid:8852099
  40. 40. Gallo MF, Nghia NC. Real life is different: a qualitative study of why women delay abortion until the second trimester in Vietnam. Social Science & Medicine. 2007;64(9):1812–22. pmid:17355899
  41. 41. Souza ZCSdN, Diniz NMF, Couto TM, Gesteira SMdA,. Trajectory of women that performed a provoked abortion contained in the discourse of a clandestine procedure. Acta Paulista de Enfermagem. 2010;23(6):732–6.
  42. 42. Freeman E, Coast E, Murray SF. Men’s Roles in Women’s Abortion Trajectories in Urban Zambia. International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2017;43(2):89–98. pmid:29261506
  43. 43. Lalley JJ, Jelsema RD, Huzel PS, Ransom SB, Sokol RJ. The cost-effectiveness of misoprostol versus prostaglandin E2 for second trimester termination of pregnancy. Clinical Journal of Women’s Health. 2001;1(3):149–56.
  44. 44. Manouana M, Kadhel P, Koffi A, Janky E. Avortements illégaux par le misoprostol en Guadeloupe. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2013;42(2):137–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgyn.2012.10.006.
  45. 45. Schiavon R, Collado ME, Troncoso E, Soto Sánchez JE, Zorrilla GO, Palermo T. Characteristics of private abortion services in Mexico City after legalization. Reproductive Health Matters. 2010;18(36):127–35. pmid:21111357
  46. 46. Lafaurie MM, Grossman D, Troncoso E, Billings DL, Chávez S. Women’s Perspectives on Medical Abortion in Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru: A Qualitative Study. Reproductive Health Matters. 2005;13(26):75–83. pmid:16291488
  47. 47. Murthy A, Creinin MD. Pharmacoeconomics of medical abortion: a review of cost in the United States, Europe and Asia. Expert opinion on pharmacotherapy. 2003;4(4):503–13. Epub 2003/04/02. pmid:12667113.
  48. 48. Perrin E, Berthoud M, Pott M, Toledo Vera AG, Perrenoud D, Bianchi-Demicheli F. Clinical course in women undergoing termination of pregnancy within the legal time limit in French-speaking Switzerland. Swiss medical weekly. 2011;141:w13282. Epub 2011/10/20. pmid:22009758.
  49. 49. Machungo F, Zanconato G, Bergstrom S. Socio-economic background, individual cost and hospital care expenditure in cases of illegal and legal abortion in Maputo. Health & Social Care in the Community. 1997;5(2):71–6.
  50. 50. Banerjee SK, Andersen KL, Warvadekar J. Pathways and consequences of unsafe abortion: a comparison among women with complications after induced and spontaneous abortions in Madhya Pradesh, India. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2012;118:S113–20. pmid:22920614
  51. 51. Henshaw SK, Adewole I, Singh S, Oye-Adeniran B, Hussain R, Bankole A. Severity and cost of unsafe abortion complications treated in Nigerian hospitals. International Family Planning Perspectives. 2008;34(1):40–50. pmid:18440916
  52. 52. Ilboudo PGC, Greco G, Sundby J, Torsvik G. Costs and consequences of abortions to women and their households: a cross-sectional study in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Health Policy & Planning. 2015;30(4):500–7. pmid:24829315
  53. 53. Coast E, Murray SF. “These things are dangerous”: Understanding induced abortion trajectories in urban Zambia. Social Science & Medicine. 2016;153:201–9. pmid:26921835
  54. 54. Brack CE, Rochat RW, Bernal OA. It’s a Race Against the Clock: A Qualitative Analysis of Barriers to Legal Abortion in Bogot, Colombia. International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2017;43(4):173–82. pmid:29990291
  55. 55. Hung SL. Access to safe and legal abortion for teenage women from deprived backgrounds in Hong Kong. Reproductive Health Matters. 2010;18(36):102–10. pmid:21111354
  56. 56. Barua A, Apte H. Quality of Abortion Care: Perspectives of Clients and Providers in Jharkhand. Economic and Political Weekly. 2007;42(48):71–80.
  57. 57. Izugbara CO, Egesa C, Okelo R. ‘High profile health facilities can add to your trouble’: Women, stigma and un/safe abortion in Kenya. Social Science & Medicine. 2015;141:9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.07.019.
  58. 58. Hulme-Chambers A, Temple-Smith M, Davidson A, Coelli L, Orr C, Tomnay JE. Australian women’s experiences of a rural medical termination of pregnancy service: A qualitative study. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare. 2018;15:23–7. pmid:29389497
  59. 59. Esia-Donkon K, Darteh EKM, Blemano H, Asare H. Who Cares? Pre and Post Abortion Experiences among Young Females in Cape Coast Metropolis, Ghana. African Journal of Reproductive Health / La Revue Africaine de la Santé Reproductive. 2015;19(2):43–51.
  60. 60. Jejeebhoy SJ, Kalyanwala S, Zavier AJF, Kumar R, Jha N. Experience seeking abortion among unmarried young women in Bihar and Jharkhand, India: delays and disadvantages. Reproductive Health Matters. 2010;18(35):163–74. pmid:20541095
  61. 61. Mutungi AK, Wango EO, Rogo KO, Kimani VN, Karanja JG. Abortion: Behaviour of adolescents in two districts in Kenya. East Afr Med J. 1999;76(10):541–6. pmid:10734502
  62. 62. Ganatra B, Hirve S. Induced Abortions Among Adolescent Women in Rural Maharashtra, India. Reproductive Health Matters. 2002;10(19):76–85. pmid:12369334
  63. 63. Ely GE, Hales T, Jackson DL, Maguin E, Hamilton G. The undue burden of paying for abortion: An exploration of abortion fund cases. Social Work in Health Care. 2017b;56(2):99–114. pmid:27960652
  64. 64. Ramachandar L, Pelto PJ. Abortion Providers and Safety of Abortion: A Community-Based Study in a Rural District of Tamil Nadu, India. Reproductive Health Matters. 2004;12(24, Supplement):138–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-8080(04)24015-0.
  65. 65. Calkin S. Towards a political geography of abortion. Political Geography. 2019;69:22–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2018.11.006.
  66. 66. Aiken ARA, Guthrie KA, Schellekens M, Trussell J, Gomperts R. Barriers to accessing abortion services and perspectives on using mifepristone and misoprostol at home in Great Britain. Contraception. 2018;97(2):177–83. pmid:28941978
  67. 67. Belton S, Whittaker A. Kathy Pan, sticks and pummelling: Techniques used to induce abortion by Burmese women on the Thai border. Social Science & Medicine. 2007;65(7):1512–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.05.046.
  68. 68. Casas-Becerra L. Women prosecuted and imprisoned for abortion in Chile. Reproductive Health Matters. 1997;5(9):29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-8080(97)90003-3.
  69. 69. Casas L, Vivaldi L. Abortion in Chile: the practice under a restrictive regime. Reproductive Health Matters. 2014;22(44):70–81. pmid:25555764
  70. 70. Ganatra B, Manning V, Pallipamulla SP. Availability of medical abortion pills and the role of chemists: a study from Bihar and Jharkhand, India. Reproductive Health Matters. 2005;13(26):65–74. pmid:16291487
  71. 71. Baird B. Medical abortion in Australia: a short history. Reproductive Health Matters. 2015;23(46):169–76. pmid:26719008
  72. 72. Cano JK, Foster AM. "They made me go through like weeks of appointments and everything": Documenting women’s experiences seeking abortion care in Yukon territory, Canada. Contraception. 2016;94(5):489–95. pmid:27373541
  73. 73. Potdar R, Fetters T, Phirun L. Initial loss of productive days and income among women seeking induced abortion in Cambodia. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health. 2008;53(2):123–9. pmid:18308261
  74. 74. Baird B. Decriminalization and Women’s Access to Abortion in Australia. Health & Human Rights: An International Journal. 2017;19(1):197–208. pmid:28630552
  75. 75. Sundaram A, Vlassoff M, Mugisha F, Bankole A, Singh S, Amanya L, et al. Documenting the Individual- and Household-Level Cost of Unsafe Abortion in Uganda. International Perspectives on Sexual & Reproductive Health. 2013;39(4):174–84. pmid:24393723
  76. 76. Font-Ribera L, Perez G, Espelt A, Salvador J, Borrell C. Determinants of induced abortion delay. Gac Sanit. 2009;23(5):415–9. pmid:19264379
  77. 77. Austin N, Harper S. Assessing the impact of TRAP laws on abortion and women’s health in the USA: a systematic review. BMJ sexual & reproductive health. 2018;44(2):128–34. Epub 2018/06/21. pmid:29921636.
  78. 78. Htay TT, Sauvarin J, Khan S. Integration of Post-Abortion Care: The Role of Township Medical Officers and Midwives in Myanmar. Reproductive Health Matters. 2003;11(21):27–36. pmid:12800701
  79. 79. Friedman J, Saavedra-Avendaño B, Schiavon R, Alexander L, Sanhueza P, Rios-Polanco R, et al. Quantifying disparities in access to public-sector abortion based on legislative differences within the Mexico City Metropolitan Area. Contraception. 2018. pmid:30502328
  80. 80. Jones BS, Weitz TA. Legal barriers to second-trimester abortion provision and public health consequences. American Journal of Public Health. 2009;99(4):623–30. pmid:19197087
  81. 81. Cunningham S, Lindo JM, Myers C, Schlosser A. How Far Is Too Far? New Evidence on Abortion Clinic Closures, Access, and Abortions. 2017.
  82. 82. Fuentes L, Lebenkoff S, White K, Gerdts C, Hopkins K, Potter JE, et al. Women’s experiences seeking abortion care shortly after the closure of clinics due to a restrictive law in Texas. Contraception. 2016;93(4):292–7. pmid:26768858
  83. 83. Sanders JN, Conway H, Jacobson J, Torres L, Turok DK. The Longest Wait: Examining the Impact of Utah’s 72-Hour Waiting Period for Abortion. Women’s Health Issues. 2016;26(5):483–7. pmid:27502901
  84. 84. Molland E. Benefits from Delay? The Effect of Abortion Availability on Young Women and Their Children. Labour Economics. 2016;43:6–28. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09275371. pmid:1596811.
  85. 85. Zamberlin N, Romero M, Ramos S. Latin American women’s experiences with medical abortion in settings where abortion is legally restricted. Reprod Health. 2012;9(1):34. Epub 2012/12/25. pmid:23259660.
  86. 86. Baxerres C, Boko I, Konkobo A, Ouattara F, Guillaume A. Abortion in two francophone African countries: a study of whether women have begun to use misoprostol in Benin and Burkina Faso. Contraception. 2018;97(2):130–6. pmid:29104024
  87. 87. Bailey PE, Bruno ZV, Bezerra MF, Queiróz I, Oliveira CM, Chen-Mok M. Adolescent pregnancy 1 year later: the effects of abortion vs. motherhood in Northeast Brazil. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2001;29(3):223–32. pmid:11524222
  88. 88. Dragoman M, Davis A. Abortion care for adolescents. Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2008;51(2):281–9. pmid:18463459
  89. 89. Lince-Deroche N, Fetters T, Sinanovic E, Blanchard K. Accessing medical and surgical first-trimester abortion services: women’s experiences and costs from an operations research study in KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa. Contraception. 2017a;96(2):72–80. pmid:28390854
  90. 90. Wiebe ER, Janssen P. Time lost from work among women choosing medical or surgical abortions. Women’s Health Issues. 2000;10(6):327–32. pmid:11077216
  91. 91. Robson S, Kelly T, Howel D, Deverill M, Hewison J, Lie M, et al. Randomised preference trial of medical versus surgical termination of pregnancy less than 14 weeks’ gestation (TOPS). Health Technology Assessment. 2009;13(37):1–148. pmid:19671372
  92. 92. Shankar M, Black KI, Goldstone P, Hussainy S, Mazza D, Petersen K, et al. Access, equity and costs of induced abortion services in Australia: a cross-sectional study. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 2017;41(3):309–14. pmid:28110510
  93. 93. Ahmed S, Islam A, Khanum PA, Barkat e K. Induced abortion: What’s happening in rural Bangladesh. Reproductive Health Matters. 1999;7(14):19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-8080(99)90003-4.
  94. 94. Margo J, McCloskey L, Gupte G, Zurek M, Bhakta S, Feinberg E. Women’s Pathways to Abortion Care in South Carolina: A Qualitative Study of Obstacles and Supports. Perspectives on Sexual & Reproductive Health. 2016;48(4):199–207.
  95. 95. Sjostrand M, Quist V, Jacobson A, Bergstrom S, Rogo KO. Socio-economic client characteristics and consequences of abortion in Nairobi. East African medical journal. 1995;72(5):325–32. Epub 1995/05/01. pmid:7555891.
  96. 96. Baum SE, White K, Hopkins K, Potter JE, Grossman D. Women’s Experience Obtaining Abortion Care in Texas after Implementation of Restrictive Abortion Laws: A Qualitative Study. PloS one. 2016;11(10):e0165048. Epub 2016/10/27. pmid:27783708.
  97. 97. Bessett D, Gorski K, Jinadasa D, Ostrow M, Peterson MJ. Out of Time and Out of Pocket: Experiences of Women Seeking State-Subsidized Insurance for Abortion Care in Massachusetts. Women’s Health Issues. 2011;21(3, Supplement):S21–S5. pmid:21530834
  98. 98. Sowmini CV. Delay in termination of pregnancy among unmarried adolescents and young women attending a tertiary hospital abortion clinic in Trivandrum, Kerala, India. Reproductive Health Matters. 2013;21(41):243–50. pmid:23684207
  99. 99. Upadhyay UD, Weitz TA, Jones RK, Barar RE, Foster DG. Denial of Abortion Because of Provider Gestational Age Limits in the United States. American Journal of Public Health. 2014;104(9):1687–94. pmid:23948000
  100. 100. Aniteye P, Mayhew S. Attitudes and Experiences of Women Admitted to Hospital with Abortion Complications in Ghana. African Journal of Reproductive Health / La Revue Africaine de la Santé Reproductive. 2011;15(1):47–55. pmid:21987937
  101. 101. Appiah-Agyekum NN, Sorkpor C, Ofori-Mensah S. Determinants of abortion decisions among Ghanaian university students. International journal of adolescent medicine and health. 2015;27(1):79–84. Epub 2014/08/26. pmid:25153553.
  102. 102. Chunuan S, Kosunvanna S, Sripotchanart W, Lawantra J, Lawantrakul J, Pattrapakdikul U, et al. Characteristics of Abortions in Southern Thailand. Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research. 2012;16(2):97–112.
  103. 103. Cockrill K, Weitz TA. Abortion patients’ perceptions of abortion regulation. Women’s health issues: official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health. 2010;20(1):12–9. Epub 2010/02/04. pmid:20123172.
  104. 104. Ely GE, Hales T, Jackson DL, Bowen EA, Maguin E, Hamilton G. A trauma-informed examination of the hardships experienced by abortion fund patients in the United States. Health Care for Women International. 2017a;38(11):1133–51.
  105. 105. Erfani A. Induced Abortion in Tehran, Iran: Estimated Rates and Correlates. International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2011;37(3):134–42. pmid:21988789
  106. 106. Upadhyay UD, Biggs MA, Foster DG. The effect of abortion on having and achieving aspirational one-year plans. BMC Women’s Health. 2015;15(1):102. pmid:26559911
  107. 107. Akin A, Kocoglu GO, Akin L. Study Supports the Introduction of Early Medical Abortion in Turkey. Reproductive Health Matters. 2005;13(26):101–9. pmid:16291491
  108. 108. Gibb S, Donaldson C, Henshaw R. Assessing strength of preference for abortion method using ’willingness to pay’: a useful research technique for measuring values. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1998;27(1):30–6. pmid:9515605
  109. 109. Howie FL, Henshaw RC, Naji SA, Russell IT, Templeton AA. Medical abortion or vacuum aspiration? Two year follow up of a patient preference trial. British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology. 1997;104(7):829–33. Epub 1997/07/01. pmid:9236649.
  110. 110. Aiken A, Gomperts R, Trussell J. Experiences and characteristics of women seeking and completing at-home medical termination of pregnancy through online telemedicine in Ireland and Northern Ireland: a population-based analysis. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology. 2017;124(8):1208–15. Epub 2016/10/18. pmid:27748001.
  111. 111. Biggs MA, Ralph L, Raifman S, Foster DG, Grossman D. Support for and interest in alternative models of medication abortion provision among a national probability sample of U.S. women. Contraception. 2018. pmid:30448203
  112. 112. Johnson BR, Horga M, Andronache L. Women’s perspectives on abortion in Romania. Social Science & Medicine. 1996;42(4):521–30. pmid:8643978
  113. 113. Banerjee SK, Andersen K. Exploring the pathways of unsafe abortion in Madhya Pradesh, India. Global Public Health. 2012;7(8):882–96. pmid:22888792
  114. 114. Johansson A, Le Thi Nham T, Lap Nt, Sundstrom K. Abortion in Context: Women’s Experience in Two Villages in Thai Binh Province, Vietnam. International Family Planning Perspectives. 1996;22(3):103–7.
  115. 115. Suffla S. Experiences of induced abortion among a group of South African women. South African journal of psychology = Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir sielkunde. 1997;27(4):214–22. Epub 2002/09/27. pmid:12321538.
  116. 116. Finer LB, Frohwirth LF, Dauphinee LA, Singh S, Moore AM. Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2005;37(3):110–8. pmid:16150658
  117. 117. Fergusson DM, Boden JM, Horwood LJ. Abortion among young women and subsequent life outcomes. Perspectives on Sexual & Reproductive Health. 2007;39(1):6–12. pmid:17355376
  118. 118. Flory F, Manouana M, Janky E, Kadhel P. Caractéristiques sociodémographiques et médicales des interruptions volontaires de grossesse des mineures en Guadeloupe. Gynécologie Obstétrique & Fertilité. 2014;42(4):240–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gyobfe.2013.05.001.
  119. 119. Bennett LR. Single women’s experiences of premarital pregnancy and induced abortion in Lombok, Eastern Indonesia. Reproductive Health Matters. 2001;9(17):37–43. pmid:11468844
  120. 120. Almond D, Edlund L, Milligan K. Son Preference and the Persistence of Culture: Evidence from South and East Asian Immigrants to Canada. Population and Development Review. 2013;39(1):75–95.
  121. 121. Alouini S, Uzan M, Méningaud JP, Hervé C. Knowledge about contraception in women undergoing repeat voluntary abortions, and means of prevention. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2002;104(1):43–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-2115(02)00060-X.
  122. 122. Loeber O, Wijsen C. Factors Influencing the Percentage of Second Trimester Abortions in the Netherlands. Reproductive Health Matters. 2008;16(31, Supplement):30–6. pmid:18772081
  123. 123. Wainer J. Abortion and the struggle to be good in the 1970s. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 2008;42(1):30–7. pmid:18058441
  124. 124. Thaddeus S, Maine D. Too far to walk: maternal mortality in context. Social science & medicine. 1994;38(8):1091–110. pmid:8042057
  125. 125. Nandagiri R. Nirdhāra: a multimethod study of women’s abortion trajectories in Karnataka, India: The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE); 2019.
  126. 126. Nandagiri R, Coast E, Strong J. COVID-19 and Abortion: Making Structural Violence Visible International Perspectives on Sexual & Reproductive Health. 2020; In Press. pmid:33326403