4.3 Article

Medical vs. surgical abortion: the importance of women's choice

期刊

CONTRACEPTION
卷 84, 期 3, 页码 224-229

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2011.01.011

关键词

Induced abortion; Medical abortion; Surgical abortion; Frances; Shared decision making

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [R24 HD047879] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Using a large national sample of women undergoing an abortion in France, we explore the factors associated with medical or surgical abortion. We draw particular attention to the influence of women's preferences in the decision-making process. Study Design: The data are drawn from a nationally representative survey of 8245 women undergoing an elective abortion in France in 2007. Analyses of factors associated with the type of abortion technique were performed among the 4650 women who were identified as being eligible for the two techniques. Results: Sixty-eight percent of all abortions were medical procedures among women eligible for both techniques. The type of abortion technique was not dependent on women's age, parity, cohabitation status, socioeconomic circumstances nor on the type of facility providing the abortion (private or public). Conversely, women's participation in the decision-making process was strongly associated with the type of abortion method. Among the 50% of women who reported they had been given a choice, 84% underwent a medical procedure vs. 52% of those who were not offered a choice. Among the 2286 women who were not involved in the decision, 35% indicated they trusted their doctor to make the best choice for them, while 44% were told it was too late for a medical procedure, although they had consulted before 8 weeks of amenorrhea. Conclusion: In this sample of French women who participated in a national survey on abortion, those who were involved in the decision-making process as to whether to have a medical or surgical procedure showed a strong preference for the medical procedure. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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