What is the optimal tool for measuring abortion stigma? A systematic review.

IF 1.9 4区医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY

European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1080/13625187.2023.2177506

Sarah E Ratcliffe, Clare S Smylie, Rebecca T Pinkus, Ilan Dar-Nimrod, Ilona Juraskova, Haryana M Dhillon

{"title":"What is the optimal tool for measuring abortion stigma? A systematic review.","authors":"Sarah E Ratcliffe, Clare S Smylie, Rebecca T Pinkus, Ilan Dar-Nimrod, Ilona Juraskova, Haryana M Dhillon","doi":"10.1080/13625187.2023.2177506","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Abortion stigma is a barrier to accessing and delivering comprehensive, sustainable healthcare. This study aimed to systematically identify measures of abortion stigma, and assess their psychometric properties and uses.Materials and methods: The systematic review was preregistered with PROSPERO (ID#127339) and adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Eight databases were screened for articles measuring abortion stigma. Data were extracted by four researchers and checked for accuracy by two reviewers. Psychometric properties were assessed with COSMIN guidelines.Results: Of 102 articles reviewed, 21 reported original measures of abortion stigma. Instruments assessed individual and community level stigma for people who have had an abortion (n = 8), healthcare professionals (n = 4), and the public (n = 9), and predominantly originated from the United States (U.S.). Measures varied in structure, use, and comprehensiveness of psychometric properties. On psychometric properties, the Individual Level Abortion Stigma scale and Abortion Provider Stigma Scale - Revised performed best for individual-level stigma and the Stigmatising Attitudes, Beliefs and Actions Scale for community-level stigma.Conclusion: Gaps in abortion stigma measurement include geography, conceptualisation, and structural-level stigma. Continued development and testing of tools and methods for measuring abortion stigma is needed.","PeriodicalId":50491,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2023.2177506","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Abstract

Purpose: Abortion stigma is a barrier to accessing and delivering comprehensive, sustainable healthcare. This study aimed to systematically identify measures of abortion stigma, and assess their psychometric properties and uses.

Materials and methods: The systematic review was preregistered with PROSPERO (ID#127339) and adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Eight databases were screened for articles measuring abortion stigma. Data were extracted by four researchers and checked for accuracy by two reviewers. Psychometric properties were assessed with COSMIN guidelines.

Results: Of 102 articles reviewed, 21 reported original measures of abortion stigma. Instruments assessed individual and community level stigma for people who have had an abortion (n = 8), healthcare professionals (n = 4), and the public (n = 9), and predominantly originated from the United States (U.S.). Measures varied in structure, use, and comprehensiveness of psychometric properties. On psychometric properties, the Individual Level Abortion Stigma scale and Abortion Provider Stigma Scale - Revised performed best for individual-level stigma and the Stigmatising Attitudes, Beliefs and Actions Scale for community-level stigma.

Conclusion: Gaps in abortion stigma measurement include geography, conceptualisation, and structural-level stigma. Continued development and testing of tools and methods for measuring abortion stigma is needed.

查看原文本刊更多论文

衡量堕胎耻辱的最佳工具是什么?系统回顾。

目的:堕胎耻辱是获得和提供全面、可持续保健的障碍。本研究旨在系统地确定堕胎耻辱的测量方法，并评估其心理测量特性和用途。材料和方法:系统评价在PROSPERO (ID#127339)进行了预注册，并遵循系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目。在8个数据库中筛选了测量堕胎耻辱的文章。数据由四名研究人员提取，并由两名审稿人检查准确性。根据COSMIN指南评估心理测量特性。结果:在102篇文献中，21篇报道了流产耻辱感的原始措施。工具评估了个人和社区层面对堕胎者(n = 8)、医疗保健专业人员(n = 4)和公众(n = 9)的耻辱感，主要来自美国。测量方法在结构、使用和心理测量性质的全面性上各不相同。在心理测量属性方面，个人层面堕胎污名量表和堕胎提供者污名量表-修订版对个人层面的污名表现最好，而污名态度、信念和行动量表对社区层面的污名表现最好。结论:流产耻辱感测量的差异包括地理、概念和结构层面的耻辱感。需要继续开发和测试衡量堕胎耻辱的工具和方法。

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

European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care 医学-妇产科学

CiteScore

3.70

自引率

11.80%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Official Journal of the European Society of Contraception and Reproductive Health, The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care publishes original peer-reviewed research papers as well as review papers and other appropriate educational material.