MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409760861 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0320260

Understanding social work’s role in abortion care: A comprehensive scoping review

2025· article· en· W4409760861 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Preetika Sharma, Julie Halverson, Yoonhee Lee, Sarmitha Sivakumaran, Cam Bautista, Hajar Seiyad, Ayla Arhinson, Temulun Bagen, Gajathree Ananthathurai, Stephanie Begun

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsOntario Council of University LibrariesUniversity of Toronto
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsAbortionCINAHLSocial workPsycINFOMedicinePublic relationsNursingPolitical scienceMEDLINEPsychological interventionLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Social workers have played a crucial role in abortion care for decades, addressing clients' diverse abortion care needs. Social workers have ethical duties to provide unimpeded access to information and supports to clients, in pursuit of social justice. This scoping review comprehensively synthesizes published literature on social work's role in abortion care. METHODS: The review adhered to Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage framework. The following databases were searched for literature published between 1973-2023: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Social Work Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, and Scopus. Search results were uploaded to Covidence for de-duplication and screening. Out of 2,980 articles screened in title and abstract review, followed by full-text review, 78 articles were included. RESULTS: A majority the 78 studies (n = 67) were set in the United States. The remainder were from the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and two studies involved multiple countries. Six themes emerged to summarize the literature base: (1) Social workers' attitudes regarding abortion and abortion-seekers; (2) Abortion stigma and barriers in social work; (3) Social work and reproductive justice; (4) Social work and ethical considerations regarding abortion; (5) Social work and abortion policy and advocacy; and (6) Social work and family planning: roles, approaches, and practice frameworks. DISCUSSION: Social workers have long played intrinsic roles in abortion care, including counseling, providing access to concrete supports and mitigating barriers to abortion care, and abortion rights advocacy. Social justice and professional ethical commitments underpin social work's role in abortion care. However, existing gaps in abortion education, training, and practice frameworks are impeded by the dynamic legal landscape and stigma attached to people seeking abortion care. Reproductive justice offers a framework, that overlaps with the field's social justice tenets, to raise consciousness among social work students, professionals, and researchers, and to address gaps in abortion education, training, and scholarship.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.185
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.174 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207