The Evidence Keeps Piling Up

Norwegian Study: Psychological distress from induced abortion and miscarriage.

I looked through the study and sometimes it's that little details that can be quite interesting.

In discussing the participation rates of miscarried and aborted women in the study, this paragraph stood out--

When nurse G. asked the women [to participate in the study], 52% agreed to participate in the study. For several years, this nurse had cared for women during the first hours after an induced abortion. She was genuinely interested in the project and had a positive attitude towards taking part in it. When other staff members asked the women, only 30% agreed to participate. The project leader (who was also the interviewer) was not well known to the staff, and some of the staff were skeptical about the study being carried out in their department. At the beginning of December 1998, when all but three of the women who had had an induced abortion were included, only half the women who had had a miscarriage were included. The project leader then had the oportunity to address the staff at a meeting that lasted for two hours. After this meeting, several staff members said that they were much more positive about the project than previously, and that they felt more comfortable about asking women to participate in the study. Before this meeting, the inclusion rate of women who had experienced a miscarriage was 36.5%; after the meeting it increased to 75%.

First, why were the staff "skeptical about the study being carried out in their department?" What's that all about?

Second, what were the staff saying to the potential participants when asking them to participate?

Third, can we find out what was said in that 2-hour meeting with the staff that caused a jump in the "inclusion rate of women who had experienced a miscarriage" from 36.5% to 75%?