Background

The World Health Organization (WHO) Abortion Care Guideline (2025) describes the importance of a policy enabling environment for ensuring access to quality abortion care, to the full extent of the law.

The Global Abortion Policies Database (GAPD), by the UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP) in partnership with the Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNPD), was launched in 2017, with the  aim of further strengthening global efforts to improve access to quality abortion care. The database is an open-access information resource and repository of current abortion laws, policies, health standards and guidelines for WHO and UN Member States. It is structured to facilitate comparative analyses of countries’ laws and policies by placing them in the context of information and recommendations from the WHO guidelines. The database contains information from 196 countries including additional information from eight countries where abortion laws and/or policies vary by jurisdiction.[1] 
A key intended outcome of the GAPD is to increase both the transparency of laws and policies and the accountability of Member States for protection of women’s health and their human rights.

The current data extraction instrument is provided as an attachment.

The process of database development included the following steps, each described below:
·       Document retrieval and data extraction
·       Data cross-checking and cleaning
·       Country review
·       Final cross-checks and revisions
·       Date entry
·       Updates

Document retrieval and data extraction
A data-extraction questionnaire was developed based on thematic domains highlighted in the WHO technical and policy guidance for safe abortion (2012). Thematic domains included: abortion legal grounds and related gestational age limits; additional requirements to access abortion (e.g., third-party authorisations, mandatory counselling, waiting periods, medically unnecessary screening tests, etc.); pre-abortion guidance; clinical and service-delivery requirements for abortion care; and conscientious objection.
A questionnaire based on the WHO technical and policy guidance for safe abortion (2012) was pilot-tested for one country prior to implementation. As the data-collection process evolved, specific questions requiring additional clarity were identified; guidance notes addressing each query were developed and disseminated to all data-collection partners. 
An explanatory guide was developed. This guide explained the coding strategy applied to each question in the data-extraction questionnaire.
Data-collection partners were identified by staff at the WHO and UNPD (the “secretariat”), based on working capacity, language proficiencies, and professional networks that might aid in source document retrieval. These partners retrieved source documents and extracted data onto the questionnaire.
Each partner developed their own document search strategies based on the following suggestions:
·       General Google searches on [country name]; [state/province name if applicable]; [abortion/induced abortion/termination of pregnancy/menstrual regulation/post-abortion care]; [law/legal grounds/policies/decrees/standards/guidelines/information].
·       Specific specialized database searches, such as Web of science, M-base, Pubmed, Popline.
·       Searches of ministry of health and ministry of justice websites.
·       Requests to personal contacts with local knowledge on abortion policies.
·       Requests through contacts in professional networks.
·       Requests to international NGOs.
All information in the Database was linked to source documents. Primary source documents include any information published or endorsed by government, whether in hard copy or on a government website; all documents not meeting these criteria are considered secondary source documents. As a general rule, secondary sources were used together with primary source documents when the secondary source added supplementary information.

Data cross-checking and cleaning
All completed questionnaires were reviewed by the secretariat. Ten per cent of the questionnaires were cross-checked against information in the source documents. Approximately one-third of these questionnaires contained errors associated with data extraction, including translation, legal interpretation, and transcription issues. As a result, a decision was made to recheck all questionnaires.

Country review
All questionnaires and source documents, with few exceptions,[2] were sent to countries for review, either through the WHO regional and country offices, or directly to ministry of health counterparts. Countries were asked to review the documents to ensure accuracy, completeness, and to confirm that the attached laws/policies were current.
Eighty-five countries returned the questionnaires with comments. The secretariat continued to engage with a number of these countries to resolve queries.

Final cross-checking
Following the country review, suggested changes supported by primary source documents were made. All questionnaires were checked and cross-checked again by the secretariat. 

Data entry
All data were entered onto an Excel spreadsheet. The spreadsheet was cross-checked against the questionnaires. Coded responses were cleaned and standardised for entry into a database linked to the web interface.

Updates to the GAPD
Interval Updates
Since the launch of the GAPD in 2017, updates are made to individual country entries as laws and policies evolve, or more information becomes available. Corrections are also made when errors were identified or when new information became available.
Comprehensive Update
In 2020, WHO initiated a comprehensive update of all countries on the GAPD. Data collection partners reviewed each country to see whether there had been any updates to laws and policies since the original launch in 2017, and beyond what was identified though interval updates. The questionnaire was also updated to include (i) aspects of pre-abortion guidance contained in the Abortion Care Guideline (2022, 2025); (ii) questions around abortion through telemedicine; and (iii) questions around the dissemination of misinformation around abortion and “safe abortion access” or “buffer zones”. 
Data collection partners also analysed the information in the “notes” sections within the entries for each country. Where certain types of information were repeatedly identified in the “notes”, new questions were added to the questionnaire to enable more systematic data collection and analysis. Data collection partners followed the procedures outlined above to identify relevant source documents and extract data for the updated questionnaire and comprehensive update. Each country entry was completed by a data collection partner and cross-checked by a second data collection partner. Countries were requested to review data and sources through regional colleagues to ensure accuracy, completeness, and to provide additional information and sources where gaps, corrections and changes were identified. Inputs received were reviewed by at least two data collection partners and updated to the database accordingly. Any discrepancies were resolved after review of source material and consultation with a third data collection partner. 
The explanatory guide and methods have also been updated to align with the new version of the questionnaire and data collection process. 

Overall approach to coding data
Abortion laws and policies are complex. Individual countries’ laws and policies can be protective or punitive, specific or non-specific, and limiting or facilitating for access and service provision. Laws and policies can be also contradictory, confusing, and difficult to access.
Information on the questionnaire is reflected as close as possible to what is explicitly stated in a country’s law and policy source documents. This approach to data coding reveals greater nuance and detail in the database but results in some countries being presented in a manner counter to traditional classification schemes. It can also facilitate grasping the complexities and nuances of laws and policies, which were not addressed previously or were obscured behind more simplistic classification schemes.

Limitations of the data-collection processes and the database
Ensuring a systematic country review process has been a continuing challenge. As a result, there have been inconsistencies and variations in how in‑country reviews are conducted.  The secretariat engages with most countries through WHO regional and country offices, which in turn liaise with relevant counterparts in the Ministries of Health. The review processes followed by these counterparts vary across countries. In some cases, Ministry of Health officials conduct the review directly, while in others, materials are shared with additional authorities, including government bodies, such as the Ministry of Justice or Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 
Three additional limitations include: 
i)                 Some source documents are known to exist but are inaccessible to data collectors.
ii)               Data extraction for source documents written in languages other than English is performed using unofficial translation tools when native speakers are not available. 
iii)              Some documents written in languages other than English, particularly scanned ones, cannot be translated. 

Further engagement with countries and other database users
Member States and other users are invited to provide suggestions for updates, corrections, and feedback using the contact forms available on the GAPD website. Updates will continue to be posted regularly, pending receipt and verification of the primary source document(s).


[1] Country (# of sub-national jurisdictions): Australia (9), Bosnia-Herzegovina (3), Canada (14), China (2), Mexico (33), Nigeria (3), Switzerland (27), and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (5).
[2] Questionnaires were not sent to some countries with Federal systems where laws and policies vary by jurisdiction; these include Australia, Canada, Mexico, and United States of America. Additionally, a questionnaire was not sent to a counterpart in the Holy See and Liechtenstein, which are not WHO or UN Member State.