The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2026
Online Abortion Information for Unintended Pregnancy in Australia: An Evaluation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lewis Lucy, Marino Jennifer L, Gao Yifan, La Salle Anne-Marie, Leslie Marlena, Hauck Yvonne
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Online information in Australia about abortion has not been assessed, despite its capacity to impact the trajectory of care without face-to-face medical expertise.
AIM: To evaluate the online information that women in Australia can access for an unintended pregnancy.
STUDY DESIGN: Mixed methods were employed in four phases. A search identified abortion portals (defined as a webpage under a single domain, providing access to other abortion websites). DISCERN scores evaluated portals quality standard. A Student's t-test was employed to assess the difference in quality by type of organisation (portals ending in .gov.au vs. .org.au). A one-way ANOVA compared portals according to the population size they targeted: ≤ 3 million, > 3 million to 8.2 million and > 8.2 million. Summative content analysis explored the framework of written words within portals associated with decision-making.
RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-seven results were identified, with 24 selected. Portals were generally high quality (61.25 out of a possible 80). Quality standard did not significantly differ by type of organisation (.gov.au: 64.9, .org.au: 59.1; p = 0.28), nor by population size targeted (≤ 3 million: 64.2, > 3 million to 8.2 million: 58.3, > 8.2 million: 61.25; p = 0.59). Summative content analysis identified five categories associated with decision-making: I am pregnant now what?, emotional support, facts that impact choices, practicalities and procedural knowledge.
CONCLUSION: The rigorous methods employed to review the online abortion sites provided women with the information required to better prepare for and navigate abortion services and make decisions expeditiously. We now need to assess if women are using these resources to make decisions about their care.
AIM: To evaluate the online information that women in Australia can access for an unintended pregnancy.
STUDY DESIGN: Mixed methods were employed in four phases. A search identified abortion portals (defined as a webpage under a single domain, providing access to other abortion websites). DISCERN scores evaluated portals quality standard. A Student's t-test was employed to assess the difference in quality by type of organisation (portals ending in .gov.au vs. .org.au). A one-way ANOVA compared portals according to the population size they targeted: ≤ 3 million, > 3 million to 8.2 million and > 8.2 million. Summative content analysis explored the framework of written words within portals associated with decision-making.
RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-seven results were identified, with 24 selected. Portals were generally high quality (61.25 out of a possible 80). Quality standard did not significantly differ by type of organisation (.gov.au: 64.9, .org.au: 59.1; p = 0.28), nor by population size targeted (≤ 3 million: 64.2, > 3 million to 8.2 million: 58.3, > 8.2 million: 61.25; p = 0.59). Summative content analysis identified five categories associated with decision-making: I am pregnant now what?, emotional support, facts that impact choices, practicalities and procedural knowledge.
CONCLUSION: The rigorous methods employed to review the online abortion sites provided women with the information required to better prepare for and navigate abortion services and make decisions expeditiously. We now need to assess if women are using these resources to make decisions about their care.