Article Text

Download PDFPDF
US public perceives abortion to be much riskier than it actually is
  1. Rachel Arkell1,2,
  2. Hannah McCulloch1
  1. 1Centre for Reproductive Research & Communication, British Pregnancy Advisory Service, London, UK
  2. 2Kent Law School, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
  1. Correspondence to Rachel Arkell, Centre for Reproductive Research & Communication, British Pregnancy Advisory Service, London, UK; rachel.arkell{at}bpas.org

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Commentary on: Chaiken, S.R., Darney, B.G., Schenck, M. and Han, L., 2023. Public perceptions of abortion complications. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 229(4), pp.421-e1.

Implications for practice and research

  • Information provision, including clinical messaging and public health campaigns, needs to emphasise the safety of abortion, stressing accurate information on ‘true’ risks associated with respective procedures.

  • Further research should focus on exploring and tackling misinformation for all abortion methods, establishing which perceived risks are associated with which procedure type.

Context

Despite firm evidence on the safety of abortion,1 a large number of myths concerning the risks associated with the treatment remain, particularly in the USA. The current political climate, which has seen increasing legal and regulatory restrictions placed on abortion, has encouraged the spread of misinformation. This has led to the perception that abortion has substantial physical and mental health risks. This study by Chaikin et al2 aimed to address a …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • X @R_Arkell, @hanmcculloch

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.