Development of a Conceptual Model and Survey Instrument to Measure Conscientious Objection to Abortion Provision
Conscientious objection to abortion, clinicians' refusal to perform legal abortions because of their religious or moral beliefs, has been the subject of increasing debate among bioethicists, policymakers, and public health advocates in recent years. Conscientious objection policies are intended...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2016-10, Vol.11 (10), p.e0164368-e0164368 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0164368 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | e0164368 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 11 |
| creator | Harris, Laura Florence Awoonor-Williams, John Koku Gerdts, Caitlin Gil Urbano, Laura González Vélez, Ana Cristina Halpern, Jodi Prata, Ndola Baffoe, Peter |
| description | Conscientious objection to abortion, clinicians' refusal to perform legal abortions because of their religious or moral beliefs, has been the subject of increasing debate among bioethicists, policymakers, and public health advocates in recent years. Conscientious objection policies are intended to balance reproductive rights and clinicians' beliefs. However, in practice, clinician objection can act as a barrier to abortion access-impinging on reproductive rights, and increasing unsafe abortion and related morbidity and mortality. There is little information about conscientious objection from a medical or public health perspective. A quantitative instrument is needed to assess prevalence of conscientious objection and to provide insight on its practice. This paper describes the development of a survey instrument to measure conscientious objection to abortion provision.
A literature review, and in-depth formative interviews with stakeholders in Colombia were used to develop a conceptual model of conscientious objection. This model led to the development of a survey, which was piloted, and then administered, in Ghana.
The model posits three domains of conscientious objection that form the basis for the survey instrument: 1) beliefs about abortion and conscientious objection; 2) actions related to conscientious objection and abortion; and 3) self-identification as a conscientious objector.
The instrument is intended to be used to assess prevalence among clinicians trained to provide abortions, and to gain insight on how conscientious objection is practiced in a variety of settings. Its results can inform more effective and appropriate strategies to regulate conscientious objection. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0164368 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1828669041</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A471861607</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_5682d7d3341a44a99b1ee2c77d1e0406</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A471861607</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c725t-21cb7b149b839f8ce68625ac379f2fed63ae7327e9692d867a2a747f309c8da3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk02P0zAQhiMEYpeFf4AgEhKCQ4s_Eju-IFXlq9KuitgVV8txJm0qJw52UrH_HqfNrhq0h1UOGU2e983M2BNFrzGaY8rxp53tXaPMvLUNzBFmCWXZk-gcC0pmjCD69CQ-i154v0MopRljz6MzwjllQpDzqP0CezC2raHpYlvGKl7aRkPb9crEV7YAE6umiK97t4fbeNX4zvUHtrPxFSjfOxgUXlchWdnex-t8BzqEzYAscusO8U9n95UP0cvoWamMh1fj-yK6-fb1Zvljdrn-vlouLmeak7SbEaxznuNE5BkVZaaBZYykSlMuSlJCwagCTgkHwQQpMsYVUTzhJUVCZ4WiF9Hbo21rrJfjrLzEGQkTECjBgVgdicKqnWxdVSt3K62q5CFh3UaqULs2IFOWkYIXlCZYJYkSIscARHNeYEAJYsHr8_i3Pq-h0GEWTpmJ6fRLU23lxu5lGsQpF8Hgw2jg7J8efCfrymswRjUQhhrqpqFbykn2GDRNCEnR0OK7_9CHBzFSGxV6rZrShhL1YCoXCccZwwzxQM0foMJTQF3pcAfLKuQngo8TQWA6-NttVO-9XF3_ejy7_j1l35-wW1Cm23pr-uGa-SmYHEHtrPcOyvvzwEgOK3Q3DTmskBxXKMjenJ7lvehuZ-g_QW8WbA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1828669041</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Development of a Conceptual Model and Survey Instrument to Measure Conscientious Objection to Abortion Provision</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><creator>Harris, Laura Florence ; Awoonor-Williams, John Koku ; Gerdts, Caitlin ; Gil Urbano, Laura ; González Vélez, Ana Cristina ; Halpern, Jodi ; Prata, Ndola ; Baffoe, Peter</creator><creatorcontrib>Harris, Laura Florence ; Awoonor-Williams, John Koku ; Gerdts, Caitlin ; Gil Urbano, Laura ; González Vélez, Ana Cristina ; Halpern, Jodi ; Prata, Ndola ; Baffoe, Peter</creatorcontrib><description>Conscientious objection to abortion, clinicians' refusal to perform legal abortions because of their religious or moral beliefs, has been the subject of increasing debate among bioethicists, policymakers, and public health advocates in recent years. Conscientious objection policies are intended to balance reproductive rights and clinicians' beliefs. However, in practice, clinician objection can act as a barrier to abortion access-impinging on reproductive rights, and increasing unsafe abortion and related morbidity and mortality. There is little information about conscientious objection from a medical or public health perspective. A quantitative instrument is needed to assess prevalence of conscientious objection and to provide insight on its practice. This paper describes the development of a survey instrument to measure conscientious objection to abortion provision.
A literature review, and in-depth formative interviews with stakeholders in Colombia were used to develop a conceptual model of conscientious objection. This model led to the development of a survey, which was piloted, and then administered, in Ghana.
The model posits three domains of conscientious objection that form the basis for the survey instrument: 1) beliefs about abortion and conscientious objection; 2) actions related to conscientious objection and abortion; and 3) self-identification as a conscientious objector.
The instrument is intended to be used to assess prevalence among clinicians trained to provide abortions, and to gain insight on how conscientious objection is practiced in a variety of settings. Its results can inform more effective and appropriate strategies to regulate conscientious objection.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164368</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27736992</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Abortion ; Abortion, Induced - psychology ; Attitude of Health Personnel ; Bioethics ; Birth control ; Colombia ; Conscience ; Conscientious objectors ; Ghana ; Health care ; Health services ; Humans ; Literature reviews ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Military service ; Models, Theoretical ; Morbidity ; Mortality ; People and Places ; Physicians - psychology ; Pregnancy ; Public health ; Refusal to Treat - statistics & numerical data ; Reproductive health ; Reproductive rights ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Sanctions ; Social Sciences ; Stakeholders ; Stigma ; Studies ; Surveys ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Womens health</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2016-10, Vol.11 (10), p.e0164368-e0164368</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2016 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2016 Harris et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2016 Harris et al 2016 Harris et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c725t-21cb7b149b839f8ce68625ac379f2fed63ae7327e9692d867a2a747f309c8da3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c725t-21cb7b149b839f8ce68625ac379f2fed63ae7327e9692d867a2a747f309c8da3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5063579/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5063579/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79342,79343</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27736992$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Harris, Laura Florence</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Awoonor-Williams, John Koku</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gerdts, Caitlin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gil Urbano, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>González Vélez, Ana Cristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Halpern, Jodi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prata, Ndola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baffoe, Peter</creatorcontrib><title>Development of a Conceptual Model and Survey Instrument to Measure Conscientious Objection to Abortion Provision</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Conscientious objection to abortion, clinicians' refusal to perform legal abortions because of their religious or moral beliefs, has been the subject of increasing debate among bioethicists, policymakers, and public health advocates in recent years. Conscientious objection policies are intended to balance reproductive rights and clinicians' beliefs. However, in practice, clinician objection can act as a barrier to abortion access-impinging on reproductive rights, and increasing unsafe abortion and related morbidity and mortality. There is little information about conscientious objection from a medical or public health perspective. A quantitative instrument is needed to assess prevalence of conscientious objection and to provide insight on its practice. This paper describes the development of a survey instrument to measure conscientious objection to abortion provision.
A literature review, and in-depth formative interviews with stakeholders in Colombia were used to develop a conceptual model of conscientious objection. This model led to the development of a survey, which was piloted, and then administered, in Ghana.
The model posits three domains of conscientious objection that form the basis for the survey instrument: 1) beliefs about abortion and conscientious objection; 2) actions related to conscientious objection and abortion; and 3) self-identification as a conscientious objector.
The instrument is intended to be used to assess prevalence among clinicians trained to provide abortions, and to gain insight on how conscientious objection is practiced in a variety of settings. Its results can inform more effective and appropriate strategies to regulate conscientious objection.</description><subject>Abortion</subject><subject>Abortion, Induced - psychology</subject><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel</subject><subject>Bioethics</subject><subject>Birth control</subject><subject>Colombia</subject><subject>Conscience</subject><subject>Conscientious objectors</subject><subject>Ghana</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Military service</subject><subject>Models, Theoretical</subject><subject>Morbidity</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Physicians - psychology</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Refusal to Treat - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Reproductive health</subject><subject>Reproductive rights</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Sanctions</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Stakeholders</subject><subject>Stigma</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Womens health</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk02P0zAQhiMEYpeFf4AgEhKCQ4s_Eju-IFXlq9KuitgVV8txJm0qJw52UrH_HqfNrhq0h1UOGU2e983M2BNFrzGaY8rxp53tXaPMvLUNzBFmCWXZk-gcC0pmjCD69CQ-i154v0MopRljz6MzwjllQpDzqP0CezC2raHpYlvGKl7aRkPb9crEV7YAE6umiK97t4fbeNX4zvUHtrPxFSjfOxgUXlchWdnex-t8BzqEzYAscusO8U9n95UP0cvoWamMh1fj-yK6-fb1Zvljdrn-vlouLmeak7SbEaxznuNE5BkVZaaBZYykSlMuSlJCwagCTgkHwQQpMsYVUTzhJUVCZ4WiF9Hbo21rrJfjrLzEGQkTECjBgVgdicKqnWxdVSt3K62q5CFh3UaqULs2IFOWkYIXlCZYJYkSIscARHNeYEAJYsHr8_i3Pq-h0GEWTpmJ6fRLU23lxu5lGsQpF8Hgw2jg7J8efCfrymswRjUQhhrqpqFbykn2GDRNCEnR0OK7_9CHBzFSGxV6rZrShhL1YCoXCccZwwzxQM0foMJTQF3pcAfLKuQngo8TQWA6-NttVO-9XF3_ejy7_j1l35-wW1Cm23pr-uGa-SmYHEHtrPcOyvvzwEgOK3Q3DTmskBxXKMjenJ7lvehuZ-g_QW8WbA</recordid><startdate>20161013</startdate><enddate>20161013</enddate><creator>Harris, Laura Florence</creator><creator>Awoonor-Williams, John Koku</creator><creator>Gerdts, Caitlin</creator><creator>Gil Urbano, Laura</creator><creator>González Vélez, Ana Cristina</creator><creator>Halpern, Jodi</creator><creator>Prata, Ndola</creator><creator>Baffoe, Peter</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20161013</creationdate><title>Development of a Conceptual Model and Survey Instrument to Measure Conscientious Objection to Abortion Provision</title><author>Harris, Laura Florence ; Awoonor-Williams, John Koku ; Gerdts, Caitlin ; Gil Urbano, Laura ; González Vélez, Ana Cristina ; Halpern, Jodi ; Prata, Ndola ; Baffoe, Peter</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c725t-21cb7b149b839f8ce68625ac379f2fed63ae7327e9692d867a2a747f309c8da3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Abortion</topic><topic>Abortion, Induced - psychology</topic><topic>Attitude of Health Personnel</topic><topic>Bioethics</topic><topic>Birth control</topic><topic>Colombia</topic><topic>Conscience</topic><topic>Conscientious objectors</topic><topic>Ghana</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Military service</topic><topic>Models, Theoretical</topic><topic>Morbidity</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Physicians - psychology</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Refusal to Treat - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Reproductive health</topic><topic>Reproductive rights</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Sanctions</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Stakeholders</topic><topic>Stigma</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Womens health</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Harris, Laura Florence</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Awoonor-Williams, John Koku</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gerdts, Caitlin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gil Urbano, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>González Vélez, Ana Cristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Halpern, Jodi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prata, Ndola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baffoe, Peter</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Harris, Laura Florence</au><au>Awoonor-Williams, John Koku</au><au>Gerdts, Caitlin</au><au>Gil Urbano, Laura</au><au>González Vélez, Ana Cristina</au><au>Halpern, Jodi</au><au>Prata, Ndola</au><au>Baffoe, Peter</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Development of a Conceptual Model and Survey Instrument to Measure Conscientious Objection to Abortion Provision</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2016-10-13</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>e0164368</spage><epage>e0164368</epage><pages>e0164368-e0164368</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Conscientious objection to abortion, clinicians' refusal to perform legal abortions because of their religious or moral beliefs, has been the subject of increasing debate among bioethicists, policymakers, and public health advocates in recent years. Conscientious objection policies are intended to balance reproductive rights and clinicians' beliefs. However, in practice, clinician objection can act as a barrier to abortion access-impinging on reproductive rights, and increasing unsafe abortion and related morbidity and mortality. There is little information about conscientious objection from a medical or public health perspective. A quantitative instrument is needed to assess prevalence of conscientious objection and to provide insight on its practice. This paper describes the development of a survey instrument to measure conscientious objection to abortion provision.
A literature review, and in-depth formative interviews with stakeholders in Colombia were used to develop a conceptual model of conscientious objection. This model led to the development of a survey, which was piloted, and then administered, in Ghana.
The model posits three domains of conscientious objection that form the basis for the survey instrument: 1) beliefs about abortion and conscientious objection; 2) actions related to conscientious objection and abortion; and 3) self-identification as a conscientious objector.
The instrument is intended to be used to assess prevalence among clinicians trained to provide abortions, and to gain insight on how conscientious objection is practiced in a variety of settings. Its results can inform more effective and appropriate strategies to regulate conscientious objection.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>27736992</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0164368</doi><tpages>e0164368</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2016-10, Vol.11 (10), p.e0164368-e0164368 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1828669041 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| subjects | Abortion Abortion, Induced - psychology Attitude of Health Personnel Bioethics Birth control Colombia Conscience Conscientious objectors Ghana Health care Health services Humans Literature reviews Medicine and Health Sciences Military service Models, Theoretical Morbidity Mortality People and Places Physicians - psychology Pregnancy Public health Refusal to Treat - statistics & numerical data Reproductive health Reproductive rights Research and Analysis Methods Sanctions Social Sciences Stakeholders Stigma Studies Surveys Surveys and Questionnaires Womens health |
| title | Development of a Conceptual Model and Survey Instrument to Measure Conscientious Objection to Abortion Provision |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T05%3A07%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Development%20of%20a%20Conceptual%20Model%20and%20Survey%20Instrument%20to%20Measure%20Conscientious%20Objection%20to%20Abortion%20Provision&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Harris,%20Laura%20Florence&rft.date=2016-10-13&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=e0164368&rft.epage=e0164368&rft.pages=e0164368-e0164368&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0164368&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA471861607%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1828669041&rft_id=info:pmid/27736992&rft_galeid=A471861607&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_5682d7d3341a44a99b1ee2c77d1e0406&rfr_iscdi=true |