卫生服务如何改善堕胎服务

S. Rowlands, E. López-Arregui
{"title":"卫生服务如何改善堕胎服务","authors":"S. Rowlands, E. López-Arregui","doi":"10.3109/13625187.2015.1109074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Previous editorials have dealt with unsafe abortion in Africa [1] and the law in Spain.[2] This editorial will confine itself to factors within health services that affect access to abortion in high-income countries. Factors that either obstruct or facilitate access to abortion in such countries have recently been reviewed.[3] The quality of the health services of the country in which a woman resides will affect her access, both generally and more specifically, to abortion services. Health ministries often fail to take a lead in abortion care. Where there is not enough confidence in how the law should be interpreted, there may be unnecessary restrictions, as is the case in Northern Ireland.[4] World Health Organization (WHO) guidance recommends that policy-makers and health care managers should ensure that safe abortion is readily accessible and available to the full extent of the law.[5] Abortions are already being provided by general practitioners (GPs) in countries such as France, Switzerland and the Netherlands; WHO supports more abortion care at primary care level. Information on local abortion services should be widely available on websites, in telephone directories, in public libraries, in pharmacies and in GP premises. A system of direct access (self-referral) to abortion services avoids any delays associated with the need for referral. Central booking systems have been shown to facilitate access.[6] In many countries fees are charged for abortion.[7] Some countries subsidise abortions performed for medical reasons, rape and in the case of minors. In the USA, under the Hyde Amendment, 32 out of the 50 states do not provide Medicaid funding for abortion, and federal funding is prohibited.[8] For individuals without health insurance in systems in which charges for health care apply, an abortion may be simply unaffordable. In other countries abortion procedures are free, although there may be some charges for hospital stay and investigations. More needs to be done to assist women in countries that charge fees for abortion which cannot be reimbursed. Where fees are charged for abortion, such fees should be matched to women’s ability to pay, and procedures should be developed for exempting the poor and adolescents from paying for services.[5] As far as possible, abortion services should be mandated for coverage under insurance plans. The barrier of high costs to women is likely to generate much higher costs for the health system, by increasing the number of women who attempt to self-induce abortion or go to unsafe providers and, as a result, require hospitalisation for serious complications.[5] Depending on whether a referral is needed by the provider, the responsiveness of health services generally to booking appointments can affect a woman’s pathway to the appropriate provider. The need for a referral from a GP can cause a delay if that doctor has a negative attitude or is a conscientious objector. About one-quarter of GPs do not refer women for abortions.[9,10] Professional guidelines on maximum acceptable waiting times between referral and assessment [11,12] and assessment and treatment [12] will tend to be incorporated into local service delivery and should be encouraged. There may or may not be a choice of provider. Some individuals may prefer not to go to a hospital. Choice is a highly valued element of services by women.[13] Negative staff attitudes and imposition of artificial requirements such as gestational limits will tend to deter women seeking abortion.[3] Unregulated conscientious objection results in high conscientious objection prevalence areas where abortions are hard to access.[14] The system operated in Norway is the best example of how conscientious objection can be overseen to ensure proper service delivery in all regions of the country. Regulations on conscientious objection ensure that all conscientious objectors are known about and that local providers have enough non-objectors to ensure the availability of adequate services.[14] Availability of abortion depends on adequate equipment; adequate availability of theatre time for surgical procedures;[15] necessary drugs being licensed for use; and trained, experienced health personnel. Furthermore, for surgical abortion in the second trimester, access to abortion depends on doctors having the necessary skills, which can become a problem unless younger doctors have the motivation and training to acquire these skills.[15] Abortion care is not usually integrated into doctors’ residency programmes.[16] Insistence on all women having an ultrasound scan can limit availability of services. WHO policy is that ultrasound scanning is not routinely required for the provision of abortion.[5] This should be kept in mind in the organisation of abortion services particularly in more rural areas.[17] In some countries there is no access to mifepristone. This limits what can be offered in primary care and greatly","PeriodicalId":22423,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care","volume":"12 1","pages":"1 - 3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How health services can improve access to abortion\",\"authors\":\"S. Rowlands, E. López-Arregui\",\"doi\":\"10.3109/13625187.2015.1109074\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Previous editorials have dealt with unsafe abortion in Africa [1] and the law in Spain.[2] This editorial will confine itself to factors within health services that affect access to abortion in high-income countries. Factors that either obstruct or facilitate access to abortion in such countries have recently been reviewed.[3] The quality of the health services of the country in which a woman resides will affect her access, both generally and more specifically, to abortion services. Health ministries often fail to take a lead in abortion care. Where there is not enough confidence in how the law should be interpreted, there may be unnecessary restrictions, as is the case in Northern Ireland.[4] World Health Organization (WHO) guidance recommends that policy-makers and health care managers should ensure that safe abortion is readily accessible and available to the full extent of the law.[5] Abortions are already being provided by general practitioners (GPs) in countries such as France, Switzerland and the Netherlands; WHO supports more abortion care at primary care level. Information on local abortion services should be widely available on websites, in telephone directories, in public libraries, in pharmacies and in GP premises. A system of direct access (self-referral) to abortion services avoids any delays associated with the need for referral. Central booking systems have been shown to facilitate access.[6] In many countries fees are charged for abortion.[7] Some countries subsidise abortions performed for medical reasons, rape and in the case of minors. In the USA, under the Hyde Amendment, 32 out of the 50 states do not provide Medicaid funding for abortion, and federal funding is prohibited.[8] For individuals without health insurance in systems in which charges for health care apply, an abortion may be simply unaffordable. In other countries abortion procedures are free, although there may be some charges for hospital stay and investigations. More needs to be done to assist women in countries that charge fees for abortion which cannot be reimbursed. Where fees are charged for abortion, such fees should be matched to women’s ability to pay, and procedures should be developed for exempting the poor and adolescents from paying for services.[5] As far as possible, abortion services should be mandated for coverage under insurance plans. The barrier of high costs to women is likely to generate much higher costs for the health system, by increasing the number of women who attempt to self-induce abortion or go to unsafe providers and, as a result, require hospitalisation for serious complications.[5] Depending on whether a referral is needed by the provider, the responsiveness of health services generally to booking appointments can affect a woman’s pathway to the appropriate provider. The need for a referral from a GP can cause a delay if that doctor has a negative attitude or is a conscientious objector. About one-quarter of GPs do not refer women for abortions.[9,10] Professional guidelines on maximum acceptable waiting times between referral and assessment [11,12] and assessment and treatment [12] will tend to be incorporated into local service delivery and should be encouraged. There may or may not be a choice of provider. Some individuals may prefer not to go to a hospital. Choice is a highly valued element of services by women.[13] Negative staff attitudes and imposition of artificial requirements such as gestational limits will tend to deter women seeking abortion.[3] Unregulated conscientious objection results in high conscientious objection prevalence areas where abortions are hard to access.[14] The system operated in Norway is the best example of how conscientious objection can be overseen to ensure proper service delivery in all regions of the country. Regulations on conscientious objection ensure that all conscientious objectors are known about and that local providers have enough non-objectors to ensure the availability of adequate services.[14] Availability of abortion depends on adequate equipment; adequate availability of theatre time for surgical procedures;[15] necessary drugs being licensed for use; and trained, experienced health personnel. Furthermore, for surgical abortion in the second trimester, access to abortion depends on doctors having the necessary skills, which can become a problem unless younger doctors have the motivation and training to acquire these skills.[15] Abortion care is not usually integrated into doctors’ residency programmes.[16] Insistence on all women having an ultrasound scan can limit availability of services. WHO policy is that ultrasound scanning is not routinely required for the provision of abortion.[5] This should be kept in mind in the organisation of abortion services particularly in more rural areas.[17] In some countries there is no access to mifepristone. This limits what can be offered in primary care and greatly\",\"PeriodicalId\":22423,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3109/13625187.2015.1109074\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3109/13625187.2015.1109074","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

之前的社论讨论了非洲的不安全堕胎[1]和西班牙的法律[2]。这篇社论将局限于影响高收入国家堕胎机会的卫生服务内部因素。最近对这些国家阻碍或促进堕胎的因素进行了审查。[3]妇女所居住国家的保健服务质量将影响到她获得堕胎服务的机会,无论是一般的还是具体的。卫生部往往不能在堕胎护理方面起带头作用。如果对如何解释法律没有足够的信心,可能会有不必要的限制,就像北爱尔兰的情况一样。[4]世界卫生组织(世卫组织)的指导意见建议,决策者和卫生保健管理人员应确保在法律允许的范围内,随时可以获得安全堕胎。[5]在法国、瑞士和荷兰等国家,堕胎已经由全科医生(gp)提供;世卫组织支持在初级保健一级提供更多堕胎护理。有关当地堕胎服务的信息应在网站、电话簿、公共图书馆、药房和全科医生场所广泛提供。直接获得(自我转诊)堕胎服务的制度避免了因需要转诊而造成的任何延误。中央预约系统已被证明可以方便地使用。[6]在许多国家,堕胎是收费的。[7]一些国家补贴因医疗原因、强奸和未成年人进行的堕胎。在美国,根据海德修正案,50个州中有32个州不为堕胎提供医疗补助资金,联邦资金也被禁止。[8]对于没有医疗保险的个人来说,在医疗保健收费的制度下,堕胎可能根本负担不起。在其他国家,堕胎手术是免费的,但住院和检查可能会收取一些费用。需要做更多的工作来帮助那些收取无法偿还的堕胎费用的国家的妇女。在收取堕胎费用的地方,这种费用应与妇女的支付能力相称,并应制定程序,使穷人和青少年免于支付服务费用。[5]堕胎服务应尽可能被强制纳入保险计划。对妇女来说,高昂的费用很可能会给卫生系统带来更高的费用,因为会增加试图自行流产或求助于不安全提供者的妇女人数,从而导致因严重并发症而需要住院治疗。[5]根据提供者是否需要转诊,保健服务对预约的反应一般会影响妇女到适当提供者的途径。如果医生持否定态度或出于良心拒服兵役,则需要从全科医生那里转介可能会导致延误。大约四分之一的全科医生不推荐妇女堕胎。[9,10]关于转诊和评估之间的最长可接受等待时间[11,12]以及评估和治疗[12]的专业指南将倾向于纳入当地的服务提供,并应予以鼓励。提供者可能有也可能没有选择。有些人可能不愿意去医院。选择是妇女提供服务的一个高度重视的因素。[13]消极的工作人员态度和强加的人为要求,如怀孕限制,往往会阻止妇女寻求堕胎。[3]不受管制的良心反对导致堕胎难以进入的高良心反对患病率地区。[14]挪威实行的制度是监督依良心拒服兵役以确保在全国所有地区提供适当服务的最佳范例。有关依良心拒服兵役的规定确保所有依良心拒服兵役者都为人所知,并确保当地提供者有足够的非拒服兵役者,以确保提供适当的服务。[14]是否提供堕胎取决于是否有足够的设备;有足够的手术室时间进行外科手术;[15]必要的药物获得使用许可;以及训练有素、经验丰富的卫生人员。此外,对于妊娠中期的手术流产,能否进行流产取决于医生是否具备必要的技能,这可能会成为一个问题,除非年轻的医生有动力和培训来获得这些技能。[15]堕胎护理通常不被纳入医生的住院医师项目。[16]坚持所有女性都要接受超声波扫描可能会限制服务的可用性。世卫组织的政策是,在提供堕胎服务时不需要常规进行超声波扫描。[5]在组织堕胎服务时应牢记这一点,特别是在农村地区。[17]有些国家无法获得米非司酮。这极大地限制了初级保健所能提供的服务
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How health services can improve access to abortion
Previous editorials have dealt with unsafe abortion in Africa [1] and the law in Spain.[2] This editorial will confine itself to factors within health services that affect access to abortion in high-income countries. Factors that either obstruct or facilitate access to abortion in such countries have recently been reviewed.[3] The quality of the health services of the country in which a woman resides will affect her access, both generally and more specifically, to abortion services. Health ministries often fail to take a lead in abortion care. Where there is not enough confidence in how the law should be interpreted, there may be unnecessary restrictions, as is the case in Northern Ireland.[4] World Health Organization (WHO) guidance recommends that policy-makers and health care managers should ensure that safe abortion is readily accessible and available to the full extent of the law.[5] Abortions are already being provided by general practitioners (GPs) in countries such as France, Switzerland and the Netherlands; WHO supports more abortion care at primary care level. Information on local abortion services should be widely available on websites, in telephone directories, in public libraries, in pharmacies and in GP premises. A system of direct access (self-referral) to abortion services avoids any delays associated with the need for referral. Central booking systems have been shown to facilitate access.[6] In many countries fees are charged for abortion.[7] Some countries subsidise abortions performed for medical reasons, rape and in the case of minors. In the USA, under the Hyde Amendment, 32 out of the 50 states do not provide Medicaid funding for abortion, and federal funding is prohibited.[8] For individuals without health insurance in systems in which charges for health care apply, an abortion may be simply unaffordable. In other countries abortion procedures are free, although there may be some charges for hospital stay and investigations. More needs to be done to assist women in countries that charge fees for abortion which cannot be reimbursed. Where fees are charged for abortion, such fees should be matched to women’s ability to pay, and procedures should be developed for exempting the poor and adolescents from paying for services.[5] As far as possible, abortion services should be mandated for coverage under insurance plans. The barrier of high costs to women is likely to generate much higher costs for the health system, by increasing the number of women who attempt to self-induce abortion or go to unsafe providers and, as a result, require hospitalisation for serious complications.[5] Depending on whether a referral is needed by the provider, the responsiveness of health services generally to booking appointments can affect a woman’s pathway to the appropriate provider. The need for a referral from a GP can cause a delay if that doctor has a negative attitude or is a conscientious objector. About one-quarter of GPs do not refer women for abortions.[9,10] Professional guidelines on maximum acceptable waiting times between referral and assessment [11,12] and assessment and treatment [12] will tend to be incorporated into local service delivery and should be encouraged. There may or may not be a choice of provider. Some individuals may prefer not to go to a hospital. Choice is a highly valued element of services by women.[13] Negative staff attitudes and imposition of artificial requirements such as gestational limits will tend to deter women seeking abortion.[3] Unregulated conscientious objection results in high conscientious objection prevalence areas where abortions are hard to access.[14] The system operated in Norway is the best example of how conscientious objection can be overseen to ensure proper service delivery in all regions of the country. Regulations on conscientious objection ensure that all conscientious objectors are known about and that local providers have enough non-objectors to ensure the availability of adequate services.[14] Availability of abortion depends on adequate equipment; adequate availability of theatre time for surgical procedures;[15] necessary drugs being licensed for use; and trained, experienced health personnel. Furthermore, for surgical abortion in the second trimester, access to abortion depends on doctors having the necessary skills, which can become a problem unless younger doctors have the motivation and training to acquire these skills.[15] Abortion care is not usually integrated into doctors’ residency programmes.[16] Insistence on all women having an ultrasound scan can limit availability of services. WHO policy is that ultrasound scanning is not routinely required for the provision of abortion.[5] This should be kept in mind in the organisation of abortion services particularly in more rural areas.[17] In some countries there is no access to mifepristone. This limits what can be offered in primary care and greatly
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信