Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38978118›Full record

ArticleHealth policy and planning2024

From political priority to service delivery: complexities to real-life priority of abortion services in Ethiopia.

Emily McLean, Ingrid Miljeteig, Astrid Blystad, Alemnesh H Mirkuzie, Marte E S Haaland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy and planning, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Quality of Medication Abortion Services From Pharmacies and Drugstores in Ethiopia: A Two-Stage Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Emily McLeanBergen Center for Ethics and Priority Setting, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Årstadveien 21, Bergen 5020, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-3544-7377
Ingrid MiljeteigBergen Center for Ethics and Priority Setting, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Årstadveien 21, Bergen 5020, Norway.
Astrid BlystadGlobal Health Anthropology Research Group, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Årstadveien 21, Bergen 5020, Norway.
Alemnesh H MirkuzieJohn Snow Research and Training Inc, Edna Mall Area, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Marte E S HaalandGlobal Health Anthropology Research Group, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Årstadveien 21, Bergen 5020, Norway.

Funding

Universitetet i Bergen
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Improving access to abortion services has been coined a high priority by the Ethiopian Federal Ministry of Health. Nevertheless, many women are still struggling to access abortion services. The dedicated commitment to expanding abortion services by central authorities and the difficulties in further improving access to the services make for an interesting case to explore the real-life complexities of health priority setting. This article thus explores what it means to make abortion services a priority by drawing on in-depth interviews with healthcare bureaucrats and key stakeholders working closely with abortion service policy and implementation. Data were collected from February to April 2022. Health bureaucrats from 9 of the 12 regional states in Ethiopia and the Federal Ministry of Health were interviewed in addition to key stakeholders from professional organizations and NGOs. The study found that political will and priority to abortion services by central authorities were not necessarily enough to ensure access to the service across the health sector. At the regional and local level, there were considerable challenges with a lack of funding, equipment and human resources for implementing and expanding access to abortion services. The inadequacy of indicators and reporting systems hindered accountability and made it difficult to give priority to abortion services among the series of health programmes and priorities that local health authorities had to implement. The situation was further challenged by the contested nature of the abortion issue itself, both in the general population, but also amongst health bureaucrats and hospital leaders. This study casts a light on the complex and entangled processes of turning national-level priorities into on-the-ground practice and highlights the real-life challenges of setting and implementing health priorities.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedHealth PrioritiesHealth Services AccessibilityPoliticsDelivery of Health CareEthiopiaFemaleHealth PolicyHumansInterviews as TopicPregnancyAbortionEthiopiaglobal healthhealth policymaternal healthpolicy implementationpriority-settingreproductive health

Identifiers

PMID38978118
PMCPMC11384106

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.