Search

Objective: The objective was to investigate public funding policies for abortion in countries with liberal or liberally interpreted laws (defined as permitting abortion for economic or social reasons or upon request).Study Design: In May 2011-February 2012 and June 2013-December 2014, we researched online resources and conducted an email-based survey among reproductive health experts to determine countries' public funding policies for abortion. We categorized countries as follows: full funding for abortion (provided for free at government facilities, covered under state-funded health insurance); partial funding (partially covered by the government, covered for certain populations based on income or nonincome criteria, or less expensive in public facilities); funding for exceptional cases (rape/incest/fetal impairment, health/life of the woman or other limited cases) and no public funding.Results: We obtained data for all 80 countries meeting inclusion criteria. Among the world's female population aged 15-49 in countries with liberal/liberally interpreted abortion laws, 46% lived in countries with full funding for abortion (34 countries), 41% lived in countries with partial funding (25 countries), and 13% lived in countries with no funding or funding for exceptional cases only (21 countries). Thirty-one of 40 high-income countries provided full funding for abortion (n=20) or partial funding (n=11); 28 of 40 low- to middle-income countries provided full (n=14) or partial funding for abortion (n=14). Of those countries that did not provide public funding for abortion, most provided full coverage of maternity care.Conclusion: Nearly half of countries with liberal/liberally interpreted abortion laws had public funding for abortion, including most countries that liberalized their abortion law in the past 20 years. Outliers remain, however, including among developed countries where access to abortion may be limited due to affordability.Implications: Since cost of services affects access, country policies regarding public funding for services should be monitored, and advocacy should prioritize ensuring the affordability of care for low-income women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Requiring a follow-up visit with ultrasound evaluation to confirm completion after medication abortion can be a barrier to providing the service. Study Design: The PubMed (including MEDLINE), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and POPLINE databases were systematically searched in October and November 2009 for studies related to alternative follow-up modalities after first-trimester medication abortion to diagnose ongoing pregnancy or retained gestational sac. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value compared with ultrasound or clinician''s exam. We also calculated the proportion of cases in each study with a positive screening test. Results: Our search identified eight articles. The most promising modalities included serum human chorionic gonadotropin measurements, standardized assessment of women''s symptoms combined with low-sensitivity urine pregnancy testing and telephone consultation. These follow-up modalities had sensitivities ≥90%, negative predictive values ≥99% and proportions of “screen-positives” ≤33%. Conclusions: Alternatives to routine in-person follow-up visits after medication abortion are accurate at diagnosing ongoing pregnancy. Additional research is needed to demonstrate the accuracy, acceptability and feasibility of alternative follow-up modalities in practice, particularly of home-based urine testing combined with self-assessment and/or clinician-assisted assessment. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]