MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1977528455 · doi:10.2471/blt.12.107144

Women, abortion and the new technical and policy guidance from WHO

2012· article· en· W1977528455 sur OpenAlexaff
Mahmoud F. Fathalla, Rebecca J. Cook

Notice bibliographique

RevueBulletin of the World Health Organization · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueReproductive Health and Contraception
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAbortionFamily planningMedicinePolitical sciencePregnancyFamily medicineEnvironmental healthResearch methodologyPopulationBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The World Health Organization (WHO) has released an update of its 2003 publication Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems.1 The guidance contained in the original publication has been widely used by governments, nongovernmental organizations, providers of women’s health services and women’s health and human rights advocates. The updated guidance is thus certain to be well received and put to good use by all public health officials and medical personnel who care for women’s health and rights. The substantial revisions in the 2012 update reflect developments not only in safe abortion methods and clinical care, but also in the application of human rights principles in policy-making and in legislation related to induced abortion. The updated publication was prepared in accordance with WHO standards and requirements for evidence-based guideline development and the draft recommendations were reviewed and revised by an international panel of experts. Notably, these recommendations provide guidance about the range of safe options available to women seeking an elective abortion and highlight the importance of having the woman participate in the choice of abortion method, pain control and post-abortion contraception. Some women will obviously always refuse to have an induced abortion, a subject that has sparked heated controversy in every epoch and continues to do so today. However, exposure to unsafe abortion is gravely detrimental to women’s health and human rights. At present, an estimated 22 million abortions continue to be performed annually under unsafe conditions throughout the world. About 47 000 women die every year from the complications of these unsafe abortions and an additional 5 million are left disabled.2 Access to safe elective abortion early in pregnancy could prevent nearly every one of these deaths and cases of disability. Women throughout history have resorted to induced abortion to deal with unwanted pregnancy, but often at risk to their health or even their lives. Although use of contraceptives has resulted in decreased rates of unintended pregnancy, it has not eliminated the need for safe elective abortion because every method of contraception has an intrinsic failure rate, even if used strictly as prescribed. According to estimates based on 2007 data on contraceptive use and failure rates, every year approximately 33 million women worldwide get pregnant accidentally while practising contraception.1 Unsafe induced abortion is not only a public health problem; it is also a human rights issue.3 Governments are obligated by their national constitutions or by legally binding international human rights conventions to protect a set of fundamental human rights, namely, the right to the highest attainable standard of health; to non-discrimination; to life, liberty and personal security; to education and information, and to freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment. WHO’s 2012 guidance explains how national courts and regional and international human rights bodies, including the United Nations treaty monitoring bodies, have increasingly applied human rights principles to facilitate women’s transparent access to safe abortion services.1 As unsafe elective abortion is a multifaceted problem involving politicians, lawyers, religious groups and medical staff, addressing the human rights of women who face an unplanned pregnancy may facilitate helpful dialogue among these stakeholders. In a consensus statement issued in 1999, the United Nations General Assembly prescribed that “in circumstances where abortion is not against the law, health systems should train and equip health-service providers and should take other measures to ensure that such abortion is safe and accessible”.4 Restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates.5 In countries where induced abortion is highly restricted by law, safe abortion has frequently become the privilege of the rich, while poor women are left with little choice but to resort to unsafe providers. Even in places where abortion is allowed only to save a woman’s life or to protect her health, trained providers and good services and treatments must be made available to manage the complications of unsafe abortion. In updating its guidance on safe abortion, WHO, with support from an international consensus and prompted by human rights obligations, has responded to a major neglected public health need of women. The writers of this editorial, a health professional and a lawyer, submit that until abortion is decriminalized, the tragedy of unsafe abortion will continue to haunt us and to threaten the life, health and rights of women. Furthermore, research aimed at developing simpler, improved methods for performing induced abortion has the potential to save the lives of millions of women globally.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,691
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,191

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,283
Écart entre enseignants0,274 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations12
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBulletin of the World Health OrganizationMême sujetReproductive Health and ContraceptionTravaux en français237 207