↓ Skip to main content

A qualitative study of safe abortion and post-abortion family planning service experiences of women attending private facilities in Kenya

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A qualitative study of safe abortion and post-abortion family planning service experiences of women attending private facilities in Kenya
Published in
Reproductive Health, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12978-018-0509-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suzanne Penfold, Susy Wendot, Inviolata Nafula, Katharine Footman

Abstract

To inform improvements in safe abortion and post-abortion family planning (PAFP) services, this study aimed to explore the pathways, decision-making, experiences and preferences of women receiving safe abortion and post-abortion family planning (PAFP) at private clinics in western Kenya. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 women who had recently used a safe abortion service from a private clinic. Interviews explored abortion-seeking behaviour and decision-making, abortion experience, use and knowledge of contraception, experience of PAFP counselling, and perceived facilitators of and challenges to family planning use. Respondents discovered their pregnancies due to physical symptoms, which were confirmed using pregnancy testing kits, often purchased from pharmacies. Respondents usually discussed their abortion decision with their partner, and, sometimes, carefully-selected friends or family members. Some reported being referred to private clinics for abortion services directly from other providers. Others had more complex pathways, first seeking care from unsafe providers, trying to self-induce abortion, being turned away from alternative safe facilities that were closed or too busy, or taking time to gather financial resources to pay for care. Participants wanted to use abortion services at facilities reputed for being accessible, clean, medically safe, and offering quick, respectful, private and courteous services. Awareness of reputable clinics was gained through personal experience, and recommendations from contacts and other health providers. Most participants had previously used contraception, with some reports of incorrect use and many reports of side effects. PAFP counselling was valued by clients, but some accounts suggested the counselling lacked comprehensive information. Many women chose contraception immediately following PAFP counselling; but others wanted to delay decision-making about contraception until the abortion was complete. Women's pathways to safe abortion care can be complex, including use of multiple abortion methods, delays due to financial barriers, and challenges accessing safe providers. Improvements in community knowledge of safe abortion care and accessibility of services are needed to reduce recourse to unsafe abortion. PAFP counselling is valued by clients but quality of counselling can be improved by exploring women's contraceptive histories, including information on more contraceptive methods, and inclusion of support for women who want to delay family planning uptake until their abortion is complete.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 146 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 20%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 5%
Student > Postgraduate 6 4%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 47 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 18%
Social Sciences 17 12%
Unspecified 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 53 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 November 2018.
All research outputs
#4,136,868
of 24,602,766 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#476
of 1,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,150
of 331,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#19
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,602,766 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,511 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,308 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.