Improving measures of access to legal abortion: A validation study triangulating multiple data sources to assess a global indicator

Abstract

Background Global mechanisms have been established to monitor and facilitate state accountability regarding the legal status of abortion. However, there is little evidence describing whether these mechanisms capture accurate data. Moreover, it is uncertain whether the “legal status of abortion” is a valid proxy measure for access to safe abortion, pursuant to the global goals of reducing preventable maternal mortality and advancing reproductive rights. Therefore, this study sought to assess the accuracy of reported monitoring data, and to determine whether evidence supports the consistent application of domestic law by health care professionals such that legality of abortion functions as a valid indicator of access. Methods and findings We conducted a validation study using three countries as illustrative case examples: Argentina, Ghana, and India. We compared data reported by two global monitoring mechanisms (Countdown to 2030 and the Global Abortion Policies Database) against domestic source documents collected through in-depth policy review. We then surveyed health care professionals authorized to perform abortions about their knowledge of abortion law in their countries and their personal attitudes and practices regarding provision of legal abortion. We compared professionals’ responses to the domestic legal frameworks described in the source documents to establish whether professionals consistently applied the law as written. This analysis revealed weaknesses in the criterion validity and construct validity of the “legal status of abortion” indicator. We detected discrepancies between data reported by the global monitoring and accountability mechanisms and the domestic policy reviews, even though all referenced the same source documents. Further, provider surveys unearthed important context-specific barriers to legal abortion not captured by the indicator, including conscientious objection and imposition of restrictions at the provider’s discretion. Conclusions Taken together, these findings denote weaknesses in the indicator “legal status of abortion” as a proxy for access to safe abortion, as well as inaccuracies in data reported to global monitoring mechanisms. This information provides important groundwork for strengthening indicators for monitoring access to abortion and for renewed advocacy to assure abortion rights worldwide.

Inclusion of abortion-related care in national health benefit packages: results from a WHO global survey

“…The survey tool did not provide an explicit definition of SRH services, and maternal health was not included within the SRH section, so the question about SRH service exclusion may have been understood differently in different contexts. Finally, categorisation of countries by legal status of abortion is always challenging, 36 and there are some anomalous cases within the categorisation. For example, a country where the only legal grounds for abortion are life and rape has been included in the ‘grounds specified I’ category, but in practice, this country might be more restrictive than a country in ‘grounds specified II’, which has health as a legal ground for abortion.…”

Accountability for maternal and newborn health: Why measuring and monitoring broader social, political, and health system determinants matters

“…Several of the studies [ 21 , 22 ] point out discrepancies between information on specific maternal health related policies reported to global mechanisms compared to national laws and statutes on record even when the same source documents are cited. These discrepancies reflect challenges with ensuring global policy databases are accurate and up-to-date rather than an indication of invalidity of the policy indicators themselves.…”