» Articles » PMID: 30964860

Experiences of Women Who Travel for Abortion: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2019 Apr 10
PMID 30964860
Citations 36
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To systematically review the literature on women's experiences traveling for abortion and assess how this concept has been explored and operationalized, with a focus on travel distance, cost, delays, and other barriers to receiving services.

Background: Increasing limitations on abortion providers and access to care have increased the necessity of travel for abortion services around the world. No systematic examination of women's experiences traveling for abortion has been conducted; this mixed-methods review provides a summary of the qualitative and quantitative literature on this topic.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Popline, and Google Scholar in July 2016 and updated in March 2017 (PROSPERO registration # CRD42016046007). We included original research studies that described women's experiences traveling for abortion. Two reviewers independently performed article screening, data extraction and determination of final inclusion for analysis. Critical appraisal was conducted using CASP, STROBE, and MMAT checklists.

Results: We included 59 publications: 46 quantitative studies, 12 qualitative studies, and 1 mixed-methods study. Most studies were published in the last five years, relied on data from the US, and discussed travel as a secondary outcome of interest. In quantitative studies, travel was primarily conceptualized and measured as road or straight-line distance to abortion provider, though some studies also incorporated measures of burdens related to travel, such as financial cost, childcare needs, and unwanted disclosure of their abortion status to others. Qualitative studies explored regional disparities in access to abortion care, with a focus on the burdens related to travel, the impact of travel on abortion method choice, and women's reasons for travel. Studies generally were of high quality, though many studies lacked information on participant recruitment or consideration of potential biases.

Conclusions: Standardized measurements of travel, including burdens associated with travel and more nuanced considerations of travel costs, should be implemented in order to facilitate comparison across studies. More research is needed to explore and accurately capture different dimensions of the burden of travel for abortion services on women's lives.

Citing Articles

Women's experiences and outcomes of abortion care in sub-Saharan countries: A mixed methods systematic review protocol.

Wakgari N, Tessema G, Watson S, Bekele D, Bradfield Z PLoS One. 2025; 20(1):e0318488.

PMID: 39888867 PMC: 11785265. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318488.


[Barriers to accessing abortion care: an analysis from the perspective of unintended pregnant women-findings from the ELSA study].

Hahn D, Torenz R, Thonke I, Eckardt S, Schneider M, Wyrobisch-Kruger A Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2024; 68(1):28-37.

PMID: 39630244 PMC: 11732912. DOI: 10.1007/s00103-024-03987-2.


Making sense of the economics of abortion in the United States.

Weitz T Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2024; 56(3):199-210.

PMID: 39537337 PMC: 11606007. DOI: 10.1111/psrh.12288.


Catastrophic Health Expenditures for In-State and Out-of-State Abortion Care.

Wasser O, Ralph L, Kaller S, Biggs M JAMA Netw Open. 2024; 7(11):e2444146.

PMID: 39514227 PMC: 11549660. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.44146.


Abortion access barriers shared in "r/abortion" after : a qualitative analysis of a Reddit community post- decision leak in 2022.

Pleasants E, Weidert K, Parham L, Anderson E, Dolgins E, Cheshire C Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2024; 32(1):2426921.

PMID: 39513330 PMC: 11626864. DOI: 10.1080/26410397.2024.2426921.


References
1.
Baum S, White K, Hopkins K, Potter J, Grossman D . Women's Experience Obtaining Abortion Care in Texas after Implementation of Restrictive Abortion Laws: A Qualitative Study. PLoS One. 2016; 11(10):e0165048. PMC: 5082726. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165048. View

2.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(7):e1000097. PMC: 2707599. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. View

3.
Van Bebber S, Phillips K, Weitz T, Gould H, Stewart F . Patient costs for medication abortion: results from a study of five clinical practices. Womens Health Issues. 2006; 16(1):4-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.whi.2005.07.006. View

4.
Grossman D, Garcia S, Kingston J, Schweikert S . Mexican women seeking safe abortion services in San Diego, California. Health Care Women Int. 2012; 33(11):1060-9. DOI: 10.1080/07399332.2012.673660. View

5.
Sanders J, Conway H, Jacobson J, Torres L, Turok D . The Longest Wait: Examining the Impact of Utah's 72-Hour Waiting Period for Abortion. Womens Health Issues. 2016; 26(5):483-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.whi.2016.06.004. View