IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v191y2017icp109-116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A good abortion experience: A qualitative exploration of women's needs and preferences in clinical care

Author

Listed:
  • Altshuler, Anna L.
  • Ojanen-Goldsmith, Alison
  • Blumenthal, Paul D.
  • Freedman, Lori R.

Abstract

What do women ending their pregnancies want and need to have a good clinical abortion experience? Since birth experiences are better studied, birth stories are more readily shared and many women who have had an abortion have also given birth, we sought to compare women's needs and preferences in abortion to those in birth. We conducted semi-structured intensive interviews with women who had both experiences in the United States and analyzed their intrapartum and abortion care narratives using grounded theory, identifying needs and preferences in abortion that were distinct from birth. Based on interviews with twenty women, three themes emerged: to be affirmed as moral decision-makers, to be able to determine their degree of awareness during the abortion, and to have care provided in a discreet manner to avoid being judged by others for having an abortion. These findings suggest that some women have distinctive emotional needs and preferences during abortion care, likely due to different circumstances and sociopolitical context of abortion. Tailoring services and responding to individual needs may contribute to a good abortion experience.

Suggested Citation

  • Altshuler, Anna L. & Ojanen-Goldsmith, Alison & Blumenthal, Paul D. & Freedman, Lori R., 2017. "A good abortion experience: A qualitative exploration of women's needs and preferences in clinical care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 109-116.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:191:y:2017:i:c:p:109-116
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.09.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953617305440
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.09.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joffe, C., 2013. "The politicization of abortion: And the evolution of abortion counseling," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 103(1), pages 57-65.
    2. Namey, Emily E. & Lyerly, Anne Drapkin, 2010. "The meaning of "control" for childbearing women in the US," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(4), pages 769-776, August.
    3. Simonds, Wendy & Ellertson, Charlotte & Springer, Kimberly & Winikoff, Beverly, 1998. "Abortion, revised: participants in the U.S. clinical trials evaluate mifepristone," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1313-1323, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Altshuler, Anna L. & Ojanen-Goldsmith, Alison & Blumenthal, Paul D. & Freedman, Lori R., 2021. "“Going through it together”: Being accompanied by loved ones during birth and abortion," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 284(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. VandeVusse, Alicia J. & Mueller, Jennifer & Kirstein, Marielle & Strong, Joe & Lindberg, Laura D., 2023. "“Technically an abortion”: Understanding perceptions and definitions of abortion in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 335(C).
    2. Tully, Kristin P. & Ball, Helen L., 2013. "Misrecognition of need: Women's experiences of and explanations for undergoing cesarean delivery," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 103-111.
    3. Footman, Katy, 2024. "The illusion of treatment choice in abortion care: A qualitative study of comparative care experiences in England and Wales," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 348(C).
    4. Miller, Amy Chasteen & Shriver, Thomas E., 2012. "Women's childbirth preferences and practices in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(4), pages 709-716.
    5. Marianne Kjelsvik & Ragnhild J. Tveit Sekse & Asgjerd Litleré Moi & Elin M. Aasen & Eva Gjengedal, 2018. "Walking on a tightrope—Caring for ambivalent women considering abortions in the first trimester," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(21-22), pages 4192-4202, November.
    6. Footman, Katy, 2023. "Structural barriers or patient preference? A mixed methods appraisal of medical abortion use in England and Wales," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    7. Graham, Ruth H. & Robson, Stephen C. & Rankin, Judith M., 2008. "Understanding feticide: An analytic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 289-300, January.
    8. Altshuler, Anna L. & Ojanen-Goldsmith, Alison & Blumenthal, Paul D. & Freedman, Lori R., 2021. "“Going through it together”: Being accompanied by loved ones during birth and abortion," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 284(C).
    9. Gustavo De Santis & Valentina Tocchioni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2016. "Women’s satisfaction during pregnancy and at delivery in Tuscany (Italy)," Econometrics Working Papers Archive 2016_08, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Statistica, Informatica, Applicazioni "G. Parenti".

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:191:y:2017:i:c:p:109-116. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.