Nityanand Jain, Anne-Fleur Fahner, Jessica Kumah, Swarali Yatin Chodnekar, Francis Abeku Ussher, Srinithi Mohan, Ikshwaki Kaushik, Amir Reza Akbari, Marinela Lica, Bismark Osei Owusu, Ernest Kissi Kontor
{"title":"Healthcare professionals' and students' willingness to perform abortion: A systematic review and meta-analysis, 2014-2025.","authors":"Nityanand Jain, Anne-Fleur Fahner, Jessica Kumah, Swarali Yatin Chodnekar, Francis Abeku Ussher, Srinithi Mohan, Ikshwaki Kaushik, Amir Reza Akbari, Marinela Lica, Bismark Osei Owusu, Ernest Kissi Kontor","doi":"10.1177/17455057251410331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Healthcare professionals' and students' willingness to provide abortion influences access to care and workforce readiness.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We conducted a literature synthesis to identify patterns in willingness across various clinical scenarios.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Medline, and CINAHL) and gray literature for studies (January 2014 to February 2025) without language restrictions. Eligible studies reported cross-sectional data on providers' willingness, while we excluded conditionally framed scenarios. Willingness was defined as the intent, readiness, or affirmative response to provide abortion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Summary-level data on theme-specific willingness were extracted and re-coded into binary or proportional format (yes/no or <i>n</i>/<i>N</i>). Estimates were pooled using random-effects models. Meta-regression and publication bias assessments were performed. Study quality was assessed using a novel in-house tool tailored for survey-based research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 36 studies (<i>n</i> = 18,779), reporting 137 estimates across 24 themes. Willingness to provide was highest for lethal fetal anomalies (88.7%, 95% CI: 76.1%-95.1%) and maternal physical health risks (88.6%, 95% CI: 55.7%-98.0%) but substantially lower for on-request scenarios (33.1%, 95% CI: 14.9%-58.4%), surgical abortion (32.1%, 95% CI: 11.6%-63.0%), and social reasons (range 20.1%-32.0%). Multilevel modeling captured both converging and diverging response patterns across categories. Meta-regression indicated that students had consistently higher willingness than professionals. Dominant religion was also observed to be more strongly associated than legal status and other country-level indices. Evidence of small-study effects was limited apart from in a few themes. Risk of bias was high in 31% of studies, with our tool showing strong structural overlap with Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) frameworks.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Providers often prioritized abortion in life-threatening contexts but hesitated in non-urgent scenarios. Values-based training and systemic reforms are needed for equitable access to and expansion of abortion care.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO: CRD42025634868.</p>","PeriodicalId":75327,"journal":{"name":"Women's health (London, England)","volume":"22 ","pages":"17455057251410331"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12759130/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Women's health (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17455057251410331","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Healthcare professionals' and students' willingness to provide abortion influences access to care and workforce readiness.
Objective: We conducted a literature synthesis to identify patterns in willingness across various clinical scenarios.
Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Data sources: We searched five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Medline, and CINAHL) and gray literature for studies (January 2014 to February 2025) without language restrictions. Eligible studies reported cross-sectional data on providers' willingness, while we excluded conditionally framed scenarios. Willingness was defined as the intent, readiness, or affirmative response to provide abortion.
Methods: Summary-level data on theme-specific willingness were extracted and re-coded into binary or proportional format (yes/no or n/N). Estimates were pooled using random-effects models. Meta-regression and publication bias assessments were performed. Study quality was assessed using a novel in-house tool tailored for survey-based research.
Results: We included 36 studies (n = 18,779), reporting 137 estimates across 24 themes. Willingness to provide was highest for lethal fetal anomalies (88.7%, 95% CI: 76.1%-95.1%) and maternal physical health risks (88.6%, 95% CI: 55.7%-98.0%) but substantially lower for on-request scenarios (33.1%, 95% CI: 14.9%-58.4%), surgical abortion (32.1%, 95% CI: 11.6%-63.0%), and social reasons (range 20.1%-32.0%). Multilevel modeling captured both converging and diverging response patterns across categories. Meta-regression indicated that students had consistently higher willingness than professionals. Dominant religion was also observed to be more strongly associated than legal status and other country-level indices. Evidence of small-study effects was limited apart from in a few themes. Risk of bias was high in 31% of studies, with our tool showing strong structural overlap with Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) frameworks.
Conclusions: Providers often prioritized abortion in life-threatening contexts but hesitated in non-urgent scenarios. Values-based training and systemic reforms are needed for equitable access to and expansion of abortion care.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
