4.4 Review

Nonpharmacological interventions to improve the psychological well-being of women accessing abortion services and their satisfaction with care: A systematic review

期刊

NURSING & HEALTH SCIENCES
卷 22, 期 4, 页码 854-867

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nhs.12779

关键词

health services; induced abortion; mental health; patient satisfaction; psychotherapy women' s health

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

How women perceive and experience abortion impacts their subsequent psychological well-being. This systematic review evaluated nonpharmacological interventions designed to support women undergoing abortion services and improve their psychological well-being and satisfaction with care. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Sociological s, Social Services s, and PTSD Pubs. All searches were limited to peer-reviewed articles published in English from January 2010 to February 2020. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility. Ten studies were included, involving four types of interventions: music therapy; social support; information support; and mandated waiting and counseling requirements on abortion access. Outcome measures were divided into four categories comprised of cognitive domains, emotional and psychological well-being, clinical symptoms, and satisfaction with care. However, there is limited evidence on intervention effects. Most studies report null or mixed intervention effects. Even though some positive effects on women's cognitive outcomes and satisfaction with care were seen, findings across studies were inconclusive. Findings also show that methodological limitations such as lack of theoretical basis, inadequate reporting and no power sample size calculation were apparent across studies. There is limited evidence about nonpharmacological interventions designed to improve women's satisfaction with abortion services or psychological outcomes subsequent to accessing abortion services. Well-designed interventions that meet the needs of service-users should be developed and rigorously tested.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据