(1)背景:获得堕胎护理是一项至关重要的生殖健康权利。难民和移民可能限制获得和利用堕胎护理,与流离失所的历史有关,不稳定的移民和公民身份,以及在陌生的东道国医疗保健系统中导航的困难。然而,关于难民和移民的堕胎经历和观点的证据有限。此外,现有的研究尚未综合起来,以确定这一边缘化人群中获得性和生殖护理的趋势。这项系统的审查旨在解决收容国关于难民和移民经历和堕胎观点的累积证据中的这一差距。(2)方法:遵循系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)指南的首选报告项目,我们在以下数据库中搜索了关于难民和移民堕胎态度的研究,决策和经验:Embase,Medline,CINAHL,WebofScience,社会学文摘,还有Scopus.我们还搜索了同样的灰色文献。纳入标准规定了涉及移民和/或难民人口的定性研究,检查他们的堕胎经历,态度或观点,用英语写的,在2000年1月至2022年12月之间发布。两名审稿人筛选了标题,摘要和全文文章,导致27篇文章被纳入审查,在两位合著者的共识检查之后。使用关键评估技能计划工具对纳入的研究进行了方法学质量评估。(3)结果:堕胎受到污名化,通常被认为是不允许和不希望的。然而,参与者讨论了社会上确定的“例外”,假定堕胎是可以接受的情况。高收入环境中的参与者与中低收入环境中的参与者之间的经历存在显着差异。获得护理的困难无处不在,但在资源较低的环境中和公民身份不稳定的参与者中,财务和法律地位。(4)结论:调查结果强调,需要一项国际公约来指导政策和方案拟订,承认移民和难民社区的具体堕胎要求,关注他们的财务,法律和社会不稳定。
(1) Background: Access to abortion care is a crucial reproductive health right. Refugees and migrants may have restricted access to and utilisation of abortion care, associated with histories of displacement, precarious migrant and citizenship status and difficulty navigating unfamiliar host country healthcare systems. However, there is limited evidence on the abortion experiences and perspectives of refugees and migrants. Moreover, existing research has not been synthesised to identify trends informing sexual and reproductive care access among this marginalised population. This systematic
review aimed to address this gap in the cumulative evidence on refugee and migrant experiences and perspectives of abortion in host countries. (2) Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched the following databases for studies on refugee and migrant abortion attitudes, decision making and experiences: Embase, Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, Sociological Abstracts, and Scopus. We also searched the grey literature on the same. Inclusion criteria specified qualitative studies involving migrant and/or refugee populations, examining their abortion experiences, attitudes or perspectives, written in English, published between January 2000 and December 2022. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles, resulting in 27 articles included in the
review, following consensus checks by two co-authors. The included studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. (3) Results: Abortion was stigmatised and generally considered impermissible and undesirable. However, participants discussed socioculturally determined \'exceptions\' to this, positing circumstances where abortion was acceptable. There were striking differences in experiences between participants in higher-income settings and those in lower- and middle-income settings. Difficulties accessing care were ubiquitous but were heightened in lower-resource settings and among participants with precarious citizenship, financial and legal statuses. (4) Conclusions: The findings highlight the need for an international convention to guide policy and programming that acknowledges the specific abortion requirements of migrant and refugee communities, with attention to their financial, legal and social precarity.