Significant changes to the nature and context of abortion provision are taking place in the United Kingdom. Empirical evidence is needed to guide efforts to respond to these changes. To provide an evidence base to inform optimal configuration of health services and systems in response to current and future changes in abortion provision in the UK. Observational study comprising five integrated components: (1) a realist review to generate evidence to guide optimal abortion provision and a scoping review of interventions aimed at preparing non-specialist health professionals to provide abortion care and support; (2) country-based case studies identifying transferable lessons for policy and practice in the UK; (3) a Knowledge, Attitude, Behaviour and Practice survey among healthcare practitioners; (4) qualitative research with women with recent experience of abortion to explore their experiences of care and support; (5) consultations with key stakeholders on the implications for policy, practice and research of findings from the research. Data collection period April 2020-January 2023. Primary setting: Britain. Data-gathering sites: Canada, Sweden, Australia. Forty-eight recent abortion patients recruited via independent providers and National Health Service hospitals in England, Wales and Scotland; 771 health professionals (doctors, nurses, midwives; pharmacists); 31 stakeholders with expertise in abortion in Canada, Sweden and Australia; 15 key stakeholders with expertise in abortion research, policy and practice in Britain. Abortion-related knowledge, attitude and practice among health professionals, including inclination to provide abortion, and competence and capacity to do so. Selected trends in abortion rates and their correlates, and the views of health professionals with expertise in abortion, in Sweden, Canada and Australia. Accounts of experience and preferences among women with recent experience of abortion. Patients and health professionals were found to be broadly in favour of relaxation of current laws on abortion in Britain: specifically, to dispense with the requirement for two doctors to sign authorising an abortion; to permit healthcare professionals other than clinicians to prescribe abortion medication and perform vacuum aspiration; and to allow abortion to be provided in additional suitable resourced and equipped facilities, notably community sexual and reproductive health services. Training was considered necessary to equip health professionals for an extended role in abortion provision as were permissions to licence premises other than those currently approved. Patients' assessment of abortion services in Britain was positive. Suggestions for further improvement included increasing the timeliness of care, resolving disparities between expectations and reality, providing emotional and psychological support, and offering choice to patients. Evidence from other countries cautioned against assumptions of direct transferability of models of care. Considerations of competence, capacity and resources are important to policy and practice decisions. The study may suffer the inherent weaknesses of observational studies in terms of the potential for bias. It was carried out during the exceptional period of the COVID-19 pandemic with implications for the ease with which it could be conducted and for the generalisability of the findings. In the component exploring patients' perspectives, we did not capture patients who disclosed experiencing an abusive relationship, and the number of women aged under 20 was small. Our inability to capture the views of patients in Northern Ireland, despite strenuous efforts to do so, was a source of regret. The needs of abortion patients are well met by abortion services in Britain. Options in terms of how abortion is carried out, by whom and where, need to be made available to take account of different circumstances. Continued investigation into the views and experience of patients, healthcare professionals and stakeholders, in Britain and in other countries, is needed to ensure that the regulation and provision of abortion care and support keep pace with therapeutic and technological trends. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129529) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 14, No. 11. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. The Shaping Abortion for Change study, led by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, is the most comprehensive study on abortion carried out in Britain. The study has looked at how abortion care has changed in recent years and how it could improve. Our research included: reviews of other research on the topic analyses of the situation in selected countries that have decriminalised abortion: Canada, Australia and Sweden a survey of 771 health workers to find out about their knowledge, attitudes and practices relating to abortion interviews with 48 patients who had a recent abortion consultations with experts in the field of abortion in the United Kingdom. One in five health professionals, and one in three patients, did not know that abortion in Britain is only lawful when two doctors approve certain grounds. Health professionals felt that this delayed abortions and patients felt it reduced control they had over their bodies. Over two-thirds of health professionals thought that abortion should be a health rather than a legal issue, and nearly 9 in 10 thought the choice should be completely that of the woman. Many patients interviewed felt that the legal limit of 24 weeks’ gestation for abortion should not be raised, except for exceptional cases. One in 10 health professionals felt abortion should not be carried out over 12 weeks’ gestation. Experts in countries where abortion was decriminalised thought that decriminalising abortion was a positive change, but it did not solve all problems in access to abortion. Patients valued choice: over the procedure, over the person providing care and where abortion should be done. It was important for patients to get their abortion done as soon as possible. Abortion advice and support (by phone or video) was seen as convenient, comfortable and prompt. Patients wanted their expectations of what medical abortion would be like to better match their actual experience, for example, in the amount of pain and bleeding. Suggestions on how things could be improved included: more information about the range of experiences of abortion; more emotional support and better access to contraceptive options. Other studies show that surgical abortions done by nurses and midwives are as safe, acceptable and effective as those done by doctors. In Canada and Australia, most medical abortions are done by general practitioners; in Sweden, by midwives. Patients were less worried about who provided their abortion care than that they were supportive and accepting. Patients had mixed views on the best place for their abortion – many preferred specialist abortion clinics, and others favoured their general practitioner. Patients felt that nurses and midwives should be able to prescribe medical abortion treatment and to do surgical abortions involving gentle suction of the womb contents. Few non-specialist health professionals had experience in providing surgical abortion procedures. Those working in sexual health clinics had the most experience. Around half of the health professionals not specialising in abortion care would be willing, with training, to provide abortion support and care. Benefits of being more involved in abortion care were seen as improving access, more holistic care, greater job satisfaction and helping ‘normalising’ abortion. The main obstacles to non-specialists taking on more roles in abortion care included: not enough time or staff, inadequate training, lack of clinical facilities and no back-up if there were complications.