Support Systems and Limitations in Therapeutic Abortion Care by the Gynecologist-Obstetrician of Public Hospitals in Peru

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To identify the barriers to provide to women and adequately train physicians on therapeutic abortions in public hospitals in Peru.

Methods Descriptive cross-sectional survey-based study. We invited 400 obstetrics and gynecology specialists from 7 academic public hospitals in Lima and 8 from other regions of Peru. Expert judges validated the survey.

Results We collected survey results from 160 participants that met the inclusion criteria. Of those, 63.7% stated that the hospital where they work does not offer abortion training. Most of the participants consider that the position of the Peruvian government regarding therapeutic abortion is indifferent or deficient. The major limitations to provide therapeutic abortions included Peruvian law (53.8%), hospital policies (18.8%), and lack of experts (10.6%).

Conclusion Most surveyed physicians supported therapeutic abortions and showed interest in improving their skills. However, not all hospitals offer training and education. The limited knowledge of the physicians regarding the law and institutional policies, as well as fear of ethical, legal, and religious repercussions, were the main barriers for providing abortions.

Resumo

Objetivo Identificar as barreiras para oferecer às mulheres e capacitar adequadamente os médicos sobre abortos terapêuticos nos hospitais públicos do Peru.

Métodos Estudo descritivo transversal baseado em inquérito. Convidamos 400 especialistas em obstetrícia e ginecologia de 7 hospitais públicos acadêmicos de Lima e 8 de outras regiões do Peru. Juízes especialistas validaram a pesquisa.

Resultados Coletamos os resultados da pesquisa de 160 participantes que atenderam aos critérios de inclusão. Destes, 63,7% afirmaram que o hospital onde trabalham não oferece treinamento sobre aborto. A maioria dos participantes considera que a posição do governo peruano em relação ao aborto terapêutico é indiferente ou deficiente. As principais limitações para fornecer abortos terapêuticos incluem a lei peruana (53,8%), políticas hospitalares (18,8%) e falta de especialistas (10,6%).

Conclusão A maioria dos médicos pesquisados apoiava o aborto terapêutico e demonstrava interesse em aprimorar suas habilidades. No entanto, nem todos os hospitais oferecem treinamento e educação. O conhecimento limitado dos médicos sobre a lei e as políticas institucionais, além do medo de repercussões éticas, legais e religiosas, foram as principais barreiras para a realização do aborto.

Contributions

All authors contributed with the project and data interpretation, the writing of the article, the critical review of the intellectual content, and with the final approval of the version to be published.

Publication History

Received: 11 February 2021

Accepted: 25 February 2022

Article published online:
12 July 2022

© 2022. Federação Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

• References

• 1 Grimes DA, Benson J, Singh S, Romero M, Ganatra B, Okonufua FE. et al. Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic. Lancet 2006; 368 (9550): 1908-1919 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69481-6.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Gerdts C, Vohra D, Ahern J. Measuring unsafe abortion-related mortality: a systematic review of the existing methods. PLoS One 2013; 8 (01) e53346 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053346.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Faúndes A. Strategies for the prevention of unsafe abortion. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2012; 119 (Suppl. 01) S68-S71 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2012.03.021.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Maguiña Guzmán M, Miranda Monzón J. La mortalidad materna en el Perú 2002–2011. Lima: Ministerio de Salud/Dirección General de Epidemiología; 2013
  Google Scholar
• 5 Mbizvo MT, Chou D, Shaw D. Today's evidence, tomorrow's agenda: implementation of strategies to improve global reproductive health. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2013; 121 (Suppl. 01) S3-S8 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.02.007.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática. Encuesta demográfica y de salud familiar - ENDES 2012. Lima: INEI; 2012
  Google Scholar
• 7 Ferrando D. El aborto clandestino en el Perú: hechos y cifras. Lima: Centro de la Mujer Peruana Flora Tristán; 2002
  Google Scholar
• 8 Távara Orozco L, Macharé P, García Angulo S, Guevara E, Cabrera S, Aguilar J. et al. Barreras para el aborto seguro en el marco de la Ley Peruana. Rev Peru Ginecol Obstet 2016; 62 (02) 153-168
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Turk JK, Landy U, Chien J, Steinauer JE. Sources of support for and resistance to abortion training in obstetrics and gynecology residency programs. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 221 (02) 156.e1-156.e6 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.04.026.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 One Hundred Professors of Obstetrics and Gynecology. A statement on abortion by 100 professors of obstetrics: 40 years later. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209 (03) 193-199 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.03.007.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 613: Increasing access to abortion. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124 (05) 1060-1065 DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000456326.88857.31.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Wood S, Abracinskas L, Correa S, Pecheny M. Reform of abortion law in Uruguay: context, process and lessons learned. Reprod Health Matters 2016; 24 (48) 102-110 DOI: 10.1016/j.rhm.2016.11.006.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Madeiro AP, Diniz D. Legal abortion services in Brazil–a national study. Ciênc Saúde Coletiva 2016; 21 (02) 563-572 DOI: 10.1590/1413-81232015212.10352015.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Committee opinion no. 612: Abortion training and education. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124 (05) 1055-1059 DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000456327.96480.18.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Turk JK, Preskill F, Landy U, Rocca CH, Steinauer JE. Availability and characteristics of abortion training in US ob-gyn residency programs: a national survey. Contraception 2014; 89 (04) 271-277 DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2013.12.002.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Eastwood KL, Kacmar JE, Steinauer J, Weitzen S, Boardman LA. Abortion training in United States obstetrics and gynecology residency programs. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108 (02) 303-308 DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000224705.79818.c9.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Jones RK, Jerman J. Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2011. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2014; 46 (01) 3-14 DOI: 10.1363/46e0414.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Freedman L, Landy U, Darney P, Steinauer J. Obstacles to the integration of abortion into obstetrics and gynecology practice. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2010; 42 (03) 146-151 DOI: 10.1363/4214610.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Vega Crespo B, Ñauta Baculima MJ, Mejía Chicaiza JV, Cortez NEL, Matute CPA, Coello MCNS. et al. Conocimientos, actitudes y prácticas sobre el aborto voluntario y terapéutico en especialistas en ginecología y obstetricia que laboran en hospitales públicos de Cantón Cuenca. Rev Fac Cienc Méd Univ Cuenca. 2016; 34 (02) 32-40
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Diniz D, Madeiro A, Rosas C. Conscientious objection, barriers, and abortion in the case of rape: a study among physicians in Brazil. Reprod Health Matters 2014; 22 (43) 141-148 DOI: 10.1016/S0968-8080(14)43754-6.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Sánchez Calderon S, Mere del Castillo J, Pacora Portella P, Alvarado SC, Vásquez RG, Pacherre MB. et al. Opiniones, percepciones y prácticas de médicos ginecoobstetras respecto a informar de las pacientes con aborto inducido a la policía, Lima, Perú, 2014. Rev Peru Ginecol Obstet 2015; 61 (03) 227-235
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Steinauer J, Freedman L. Institutional religious policies that follow obstetricians and gynecologists into practice. J Grad Med Educ 2017; 9 (04) 447-450 DOI: 10.4300/JGME-D-17-00376.1.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Steinauer JE, Turk JK, Preskill F, Devaskar S, Freedman L, Landy U. Impact of partial participation in integrated family planning training on medical knowledge, patient communication and professionalism. Contraception 2014; 89 (04) 278-285 DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2013.12.012.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Steinauer JE, Hawkins M, Turk JK, Darney P, Preskill F, Landy U. Opting out of abortion training: benefits of partial participation in a dedicated family planning rotation for ob-gyn residents. Contraception 2013; 87 (01) 88-92 DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.09.002.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Steinauer JE, Turk JK, Fulton MC, Simonson KH, Landy U. The benefits of family planning training: a 10-year review of the Ryan Residency Training Program. Contraception 2013; 88 (02) 275-280 DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2013.02.006.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Allen RH, Raker C, Steinauer J, Eastwood KL, Kacmar JE, Boardman LA. Future abortion provision among US graduating obstetrics and gynecology residents, 2004. Contraception 2010; 81 (06) 531-536 DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.01.001.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar