title: Stakeholder perceptions of misoprostol: a qualitative investigation.
abstract: The study aimed to explore perceptions of stakeholders regarding misoprostol use in Cambodia, a setting with high maternal mortality. Semi-structured expert interviews were conducted with 21 participants in the capital, Phnom Penh. The sample included participants involved in providing reproductive health services through international and local health agencies and the pharmaceutical industry. A theme of controversy over the role of misoprostol in the context of reproductive health services emerged, along with a need to reconcile legitimate viewpoints in order to understand the place of misoprostol in the Cambodian reproductive health setting. Understanding stakeholder perspectives on misoprostol can shed light on the drug's role in reproductive health programming where maternal mortality is high and health facilities are still improving.
authors.affiliation: Department of Global Community Health and Behavioral Sciences, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.
authors.forename: Alessandra N
authors.initials: AN
authors.lastname: Bazzano
authors.affiliation: Department of Global Community Health and Behavioral Sciences, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.
authors.forename: Lea
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Jones
authors.affiliation: Research, Monitoring and Evaluation Team, Health System Department, Marie Stopes International, London, UK.
authors.forename: Thoai D
authors.initials: TD
authors.lastname: Ngo
keywords: Cambodia; maternal mortality; medical abortion; misoprostol; post-partum hemorrhage; unsafe abortion
references.citation: Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997 Jul;104(7):829-33
references.pmid: 9236649
references.citation: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006 Aug;94(2):149-55
references.pmid: 16828767
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1998 Jun 25;338(26):1881-5
references.pmid: 9637807
references.citation: BJOG. 2008 Jul;115(8):957-68; discussion 968
references.pmid: 18651879
references.citation: Lancet. 1998 May 30;351(9116):1624-7
references.pmid: 9620717
references.citation: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006 Feb;92(2):170-5
references.pmid: 16371228
references.citation: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 May;105(2):180-6
references.pmid: 19286183
references.citation: Health Policy Plan. 2011 Jul;26 Suppl 1:i20-9
references.pmid: 21729914
references.citation: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010 Mar;108(3):282-8
references.pmid: 20034628
references.citation: Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2011;72(4):257-63
references.pmid: 21997301
references.citation: J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2010 Dec;36(6):1265-6
references.pmid: 21114575
references.citation: Lancet. 2012 Feb 18;379(9816):625-32
references.pmid: 22264435
references.citation: Asia Pac J Public Health. 2012 Nov;24(6):989-1001
references.pmid: 21551135
references.citation: Lancet. 2006 Oct 7;368(9543):1248-53
references.pmid: 17027730
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 1997 Jun;44(12):1833-45
references.pmid: 9194245
references.citation: Health Policy Plan. 2011 Jul;26 Suppl 1:i30-44
references.pmid: 21729915
references.citation: Afr J Reprod Health. 2009 Jun;13(2):87-95
references.pmid: 20690252