Search

Background: Despite the increased availability of safe abortion methods in sub-Saharan Africa, women and girls continue to use unsafe abortion methods and procedures to terminate their unwanted pregnancies, resulting in severe complications, lifelong disabilities, and death. Barriers to safe abortion methods include restrictive laws, low awareness of safe abortion methods, poverty, and sociocultural and health system barriers. Nonetheless, there is a paucity of data on the decision-making around and use of abortion methods. This paper aims to provide answers to the following questions: Which abortion methods do women and girls use and why? Who and what influences their decisions? What can we learn from their decision-making process to enhance the uptake of safe abortion methods? We focus our in-depth analysis on the rationale behind the choice of abortion methods used by women and girls in Kilifi County in Kenya and Atlantique Department in Benin. Methods: We draw on data collected as part of an ethnographic study conducted between January and August 2021 on lived experiences, social determinants, and pathways to abortion. Data were collected using repeated in-depth interviews with 95 girls and women who had a recent abortion experience. Data from the interviews were supplemented using information from key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and participant observation. Data analysis was conducted through an inductive process. Results: Our findings reveal that women and girls use various methods to procure abortions, including herbs, high doses of pharmaceutical drugs, homemade concoctions, medical abortion drugs, and surgical abortion methods. Procedures may involve singular or multiple attempts, and sometimes, mixing several methods to achieve the goal of pregnancy termination. The use of various abortion methods is mainly driven by the pursuit of social safety (preservation of secrecy and social relationships, avoidance of shame and stigmatization) instead of medical safety (which implies technical safety and quality). Conclusion: Our findings reaffirm the need for comprehensive access to, and availability of, abortion-related information and services, especially safe abortion and post-abortion care services that emphasize both medical and social safety. Plain Language Summary: Despite the availability of safe abortion methods in sub-Saharan Africa, women and girls in the region continue to resort to unsafe methods, leading to severe complications, disabilities, and maternal death. This can be attributed to restrictive abortion laws, lack of awareness on safe abortion methods, poverty, and sociocultural and health system barriers. This paper uses data from a larger ethnographic study in Kilifi County, Kenya, and Atlantique Department, Benin, to understand which methods women and girls use, and why, to help improve the use of safe abortion methods. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with 95 girls and women who had recently undergone an abortion, as well as key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and participant observation. The findings reveal that women and girls use various methods to terminate their pregnancies, including herbs, high doses of pharmaceutical drugs, homemade concoctions, medical abortion drugs, and surgical methods. They often use these methods once, multiple times, or in combination to achieve their goal. The main reason for their choice of methods is not medical safety but social safety, including preserving social relationships and avoiding shame and stigma. We conclude that there is a pressing need for greater access to accurate, well-framed information about safe abortion methods. Abortion services should consider not only medical safety but also discretion to mitigate the social implications of having an abortion in a medical facility. By addressing these factors, it is possible to enhance the use of safe abortion methods and reduce the reliance on unsafe practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Reproductive Health is the property of BioMed Central and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In 2017, the Trump Administration reinstated and expanded the Global Gag Rule (GGR). This policy requires non-governmental organisations (NGOs) not based in the US to certify that they will not provide, counsel, refer, or advocate for abortion as a method of family planning in order to receive most categories of US global health assistance. Robust empirical evidence demonstrating the policy's impacts is acutely lacking. This paper describes the effects of the expanded GGR policy in Kenya eighteen months after its reinstatement. We conducted semi-structured interviews with purposively selected representatives of US- and non-US-based NGOs, as well as managers and health providers at public and private health facilities, between September 2018 and March 2019. Organisations reported critical funding loss as they were forced to choose between US government-funded projects and projects supporting safe abortion. This resulted in the fragmentation of sexual and reproductive health and HIV services, and closure of some service delivery programmes. At public and private health facilities, participants reported staffing shortages and increased stock-outs of family planning and safe abortion commodities. The expanded GGR's effects transcended abortion care by also disrupting collaboration and health promotion activities, strengthening opposition to sexual and reproductive health and rights in some segments of Kenyan civil society and government. Our findings indicate that the GGR exposes and exacerbates the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the Kenyan health system, and illuminates the need for action to mitigate these harms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]