Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T12:07:28.998Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studying the Acceptability and Feasibility of Medical Abortion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2021

Beverly Winikoff ,
Kurus Coyaji ,
Evelio Cabezas ,
Banoo Coyaji ,
Usha Krishna ,
Oscar de la Concepcion ,
Andrea Eschen ,
Irving Sivin  and
Martha Brady
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“Acceptability research” is a term first coined to describe inquiries into individuals’ responses to family planning and contraceptive technology. As defined by WHO, “acceptability” is a “quality which makes an object, person, event, or idea attractive, satisfactory, pleasing or welcome.” In fact, the word “acceptable” in English is distinct from other issues that are also encompassed within “acceptability research.” “Acceptable,” to many, connotes faint praise. It may mean that something is tolerable only to the point of not being protested. On the other hand, the attributes “desirable” and “preferable” are more positive. In fact, all of these qualities are examined within the meaning of “acceptability research” as currently used by the Population Council.

Acceptability of a product or a medical procedure is most commonly studied in terms of patients or clients. Do those who will undergo the procedure or be the subjects of the technology find its use acceptable? But, in fact, acceptability can also be tested in relation to the providers of the technologies (i.e., the medical professionals), to the program managers or to policymakers.

Type
Patient Perspectives
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , Fall 1992 , pp. 195 - 198
Copyright
© 1992 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Marshall, John, “Acceptability of Fertility Regulating Methods: Designing Technology to Fit People”, Preventive Medicine Vol. 6, 1977, pp. 65–73.Google Scholar
Cleland, John G., Hardy, Ellen E. and Tauher, Eric, Introduction of New Contraceptives into Family Planning Programs, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1990, pp. 13–15; Keller, Alan, “Contraceptive Acceptability Research: Utility and Limitations”. Studies in Family Planning Vol. 10, No. 8/9, 1979, pp. 230–237; Rosen, Anne-Sofie, “Acceptability of Abortion Methods”. Bailliere's Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology Vol 4., No. 2, 1990, pp. 375–390.Google Scholar
Cameron, J.T. and Baird, D.T., “Early Pregnancy Termination: A Comparison Between Vacuum Aspiration and Medical Abortion Using Prostaglandin (16,16 dimethyl-trans-2-PGE, methyl ester) or the Antiprogestogen RU 486”, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Vol. 95, 1988, pp. 271–276; Rosen, Anne-Sofie, “Acceptability of Abortion Methods”, Bailliere's Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology Vol. 4, No. 2, 1990, pp. 375–390; Rosen, Anne-Sofie, Nystedt, Lars, Bygedeman, Marc and Lundstrom, Viveca, “Acceptability of a Nonsurgical Method to Terminate Very Early Pregnancy in Comparison to Vacuum Aspiration”, Contraception Vol. 10, No. 12, 1979, pp. 107–117; Urquhart, D.R. and Templeton, A.A., “Acceptability of Medical Pregnancy Termination”, The Lancet Vol. II, p. 106 July 9, 1988; Urquhart, D.R. and Templeton, A.A., “Psychiatric Morbidity and Acceptability Following Medical and Surgical Methods of Induced Abortion”, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Vol. 98, 1991, pp. 396–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palca, Joseph, “The Pill of Choice?” Science Vol. 24, 1989, pp. 1319–1357; “RU 486 in Developing Countries: Questions Remain,” Outlook Vol 9, No. 3, 1991, (Washington, D.C.: The Program for Appropriate Technology in Health).Google Scholar
“Resume des caracteristiques du produit: Mifegyne 200 mg,” 1990 Ministere de la Solidarite, de la Sante et de la Protection Sociale, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Baird, David T., Rodger, Mary, Cameron, Iain T. and Roberts, Ian, “Prostaglandins and Antigestagens for the Interruption of Early Pregnancy”, Journal of Reproductive Fertility Supplement 36, 1988, pp. 173–179; Birgerson, Lars and Odlind, Viveca, “The Antiprogestational Agent RU 486 as an Abortifacient in Early Human Pregnancy: A Comparison of Three Dose Regimens”, Contraception Vol. 38, No. 4, 1988, pp. 391–400; Bygdeman, M. and Swahn, M.L., “Projesterone Receptor Blockage: Effect on Uterine Contractility and Early Pregnancy”, Contraception Vol. 32, No. 1, 1985, pp. 45–51; Cameron, I.T., Michie, A.F. and Baird, D. T., “Therapeutic Abortion in Early Pregnancy with Antiprogestogen RU 486 Alone or in Combination with Prostaglandin Analogue (Gemeprost)”, Contraception Vol. 34, No. 5, 1986, pp. 459–468; Dubois, Catherine, Ulmann, André and Baulieu, Etienne-Emile, “Contragestion with Late Luteal Administration of RU 486 (Mifepristone)”, Fertility and Sterility Vol. 50, No. 4, 1988, pp. 593–596; Rodger, Mary W. and Baird, David T., “Induction of Therapeutic Abortion in Eary Pregnancy with Mifepristone in Combination with Prostaglandin Pessary”, The Lancet December, 1987, Vol. II, pp. 141–1422; Rodger, Mary W., Cojen, Alison F. and Baird, David T., “Induction of Early Abortion with Mifepristone (RU 486) and Two Different Doses of Prostaglandin (Gemeprost)”, Contraception Vol. 39, No. 5, 1989, pp. 597–502; Silvestre, Louise et al., “Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy with Mifepristone (RU 486) and a Prostaglandin Analogue: A Large Scale French Experience”, The New England Journal of Medicine Vol. 332, No. 10, 1990, pp. 645–648; Swahn, M.L., Gottlieb, C., Green, K. and Bgydeman, M., “Oral Administartion of RU 486 and 9-Methylene PGE2 for Termination of Early Pregnancy”, Contraception Vol. 41, No. 5, 1990, pp. 461–473; Vervest, Harry A.M. and Hespels, Amy A., “Preliminary Results with the Antiprogestational Compound RU 486 (mifepristone) for Interruption of Early Pregnancy”, Fertility and Sterility Vol 44, No. 5, 1985, pp. 627–632.Google Scholar