Understanding structural barriers to abortion care under the counselling regulation in Germany: results of a qualitative interview study.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES
Amelie Kolandt, Susanne Michl, Mirjam Faissner
{"title":"Understanding structural barriers to abortion care under the counselling regulation in Germany: results of a qualitative interview study.","authors":"Amelie Kolandt, Susanne Michl, Mirjam Faissner","doi":"10.1136/bmjsrh-2025-202798","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Abortion care in Germany is under-researched. Available data show regional disparities in the availability and accessibility of abortion services, but the structural causes for this remain unclear. In Germany, abortion is technically illegal but is exempt from punishment under the counselling regulation, which means that the pregnant person has to undergo mandatory counselling and observe a 3-day waiting period. This qualitative interview study examines the perspectives of abortion care providers on the provision of abortion care under this regulation in Germany.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We included 42 gynaecologists and abortion counsellors nationwide. We conducted in-depth, guideline-based interviews that explored the participants' perspectives on challenges in abortion care. The data were analysed using qualitative content analysis according to Mayring. The results were evaluated against the WHO's components of the right to sexual and reproductive health: availability, accessibility, acceptability, quality, and equity, inclusivity and patient-centredness of care.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified various structural barriers that limit the availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality of abortion care under the counselling regulation in Germany. Interviewees named the shortage of doctors performing abortions as one structural root cause for insufficient abortion care that is exacerbated by the procedure's criminalisation. A lack of information transparency, complex legal requirements, language barriers, disinformation as well as social stigmatisation were cited as important barriers to abortion care. These barriers were described as having a particularly strong impact on patients from marginalised groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study indicates that structural barriers associated with the current legal regulation create significant hurdles for both patients and providers and undermine the access, availability, acceptability, quality of care, and patient-centredness of care. In this context, we strongly support the recommendation of the German government's expert commission to revise the current legal regulation of abortion in Germany.</p>","PeriodicalId":9219,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2025-202798","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Abortion care in Germany is under-researched. Available data show regional disparities in the availability and accessibility of abortion services, but the structural causes for this remain unclear. In Germany, abortion is technically illegal but is exempt from punishment under the counselling regulation, which means that the pregnant person has to undergo mandatory counselling and observe a 3-day waiting period. This qualitative interview study examines the perspectives of abortion care providers on the provision of abortion care under this regulation in Germany.

Design: We included 42 gynaecologists and abortion counsellors nationwide. We conducted in-depth, guideline-based interviews that explored the participants' perspectives on challenges in abortion care. The data were analysed using qualitative content analysis according to Mayring. The results were evaluated against the WHO's components of the right to sexual and reproductive health: availability, accessibility, acceptability, quality, and equity, inclusivity and patient-centredness of care.

Results: We identified various structural barriers that limit the availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality of abortion care under the counselling regulation in Germany. Interviewees named the shortage of doctors performing abortions as one structural root cause for insufficient abortion care that is exacerbated by the procedure's criminalisation. A lack of information transparency, complex legal requirements, language barriers, disinformation as well as social stigmatisation were cited as important barriers to abortion care. These barriers were described as having a particularly strong impact on patients from marginalised groups.

Conclusions: Our study indicates that structural barriers associated with the current legal regulation create significant hurdles for both patients and providers and undermine the access, availability, acceptability, quality of care, and patient-centredness of care. In this context, we strongly support the recommendation of the German government's expert commission to revise the current legal regulation of abortion in Germany.

了解德国在咨询法规下堕胎护理的结构性障碍:一项定性访谈研究的结果。
目的:德国的人工流产护理研究不足。现有数据显示,在堕胎服务的可获得性和可获得性方面存在区域差异,但造成这种情况的结构性原因仍不清楚。在德国,堕胎在技术上是非法的,但根据咨询条例,堕胎不受惩罚,这意味着怀孕的人必须接受强制性咨询,并遵守3天的等待期。这个定性访谈研究考察了堕胎护理提供者在德国这一规定下提供堕胎护理的观点。设计:我们纳入了全国42名妇科医生和堕胎顾问。我们进行了深入的、基于指南的访谈,探讨了参与者对堕胎护理挑战的看法。采用定性内容分析法对数据进行分析。根据世卫组织性健康和生殖健康权利的组成部分:可获得性、可获得性、可接受性、质量和公平、包容性和以患者为中心的护理,对结果进行了评估。结果:我们确定了各种结构性障碍,这些障碍限制了德国咨询法规下堕胎护理的可用性、可及性、可接受性和质量。受访者指出,实施堕胎手术的医生短缺是堕胎护理不足的一个结构性根本原因,堕胎被定为刑事犯罪加剧了这一问题。缺乏信息透明度、复杂的法律要求、语言障碍、虚假信息以及社会污名化被认为是流产护理的重要障碍。据描述,这些障碍对来自边缘群体的患者有特别强烈的影响。结论:我们的研究表明,与现行法律法规相关的结构性障碍对患者和提供者都造成了重大障碍,并破坏了护理的可及性、可接受性、质量和以患者为中心的护理。在这方面,我们坚决支持德国政府专家委员会关于修改德国目前关于堕胎的法律规定的建议。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Medicine-Reproductive Medicine
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
6.10%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health is a multiprofessional journal that promotes sexual and reproductive health and wellbeing, and best contraceptive practice, worldwide. It publishes research, debate and comment to inform policy and practice, and recognises the importance of professional-patient partnership.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信