Effectiveness, safety and acceptability of no-test medical abortion (termination of pregnancy) provided via telemedicine: a national cohort study

被引:188
作者
Aiken, A. R. A. [1 ]
Lohr, P. A. [2 ]
Lord, J. [3 ]
Ghosh, N. [4 ]
Starling, J. [5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas Austin, LBJ Sch Publ Affairs, Austin, TX 78712 USA
[2] British Pregnancy Advisory Serv, Stratford Upon Avon, England
[3] MSI Reprod Choices, 1 Conway St,Fitzroy Sq, London W1T 6LP, England
[4] Natl Unplanned Pregnancy Advisory Serv NUPAS, Birmingham, W Midlands, England
[5] Math Policy Res, Cambridge, MA USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Abortion; induced [E04; 520; 050; ambulatory care facilities [N02; 278; 035; health planning [N03; 349; mifepristone [D04; 210; 500; 365; 415; 580; misoprostol [D23; 469; 700; 660; pregnancy complications [C13; 703; telemedicine [N04; 590; 374; 800; termination of pregnancy; ECTOPIC PREGNANCY; MIFEPRISTONE; COMPLICATIONS; RISK;
D O I
10.1111/1471-0528.16668
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective To compare outcomes before and after implementation of medical abortion (termination of pregnancy) without ultrasound via telemedicine. Design Cohort analysis. Setting The three main abortion providers. Population or sample Medical abortions at home at <= 69 days' gestation in two cohorts: traditional model (in-person with ultrasound, n = 22 158) from January to March 2020 versus telemedicine-hybrid model (either in person or via telemedicine without ultrasound, n = 29 984, of whom 18 435 had no-test telemedicine) between April and June 2020. Sample (n = 52 142) comprises 85% of all medical abortions provided nationally. Methods Data from electronic records and incident databases were used to compare outcomes between cohorts, adjusted for baseline differences. Main outcome measures Treatment success, serious adverse events, waiting times, gestation at treatment, acceptability. Results Mean waiting time from referral to treatment was 4.2 days shorter in the telemedicine-hybrid model and more abortions were provided at <= 6 weeks' gestation (40% versus 25%, P < 0.001). Treatment success (98.8% versus 98.2%, P > 0.999), serious adverse events (0.02% versus 0.04%, P = 0.557) and incidence of ectopic pregnancy (0.2% versus 0.2%, P = 0.796) were not different between models. In the telemedicine-hybrid model, 0.04% were estimated to be over 10 weeks' gestation at the time of the abortion; all were completed safely at home. Within the telemedicine-hybrid model, effectiveness was higher with telemedicine than in-person care (99.2% versus 98.1%, P < 0.001). Acceptability of telemedicine was high (96% satisfied) and 80% reported a future preference for telemedicine. Conclusions A telemedicine-hybrid model for medical abortion that includes no-test telemedicine and treatment without an ultrasound is effective, safe, acceptable and improves access to care. Tweetable abstract Compelling evidence from 52 142 women shows no-test telemedicine abortion is safe, effective and improves care.
引用
收藏
页码:1464 / 1474
页数:11
相关论文
共 39 条
[1]   Barriers to accessing abortion services and perspectives on using mifepristone and misoprostol at home in Great Britain [J].
Aiken, Abigail R. A. ;
Guthrie, Katherine A. ;
Schellekens, Marlies ;
Trussell, James ;
Gomperts, Rebecca .
CONTRACEPTION, 2018, 97 (02) :177-183
[2]  
Aiken C., 2020, DEMAND SELF MANAGED
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2019, NG140 NICE
[4]   Effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of self-assessment of the outcome of first-trimester medical abortion: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J].
Baiju, N. ;
Acharya, G. ;
D'Antonio, F. ;
Berg, R. C. .
BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2019, 126 (13) :1536-1544
[5]   Unintended pregnancy and abortion by income, region, and the legal status of abortion: estimates from a comprehensive model for 1990-2019 [J].
Bearak, Jonathan ;
Popinchalk, Anna ;
Ganatra, Bela ;
Moller, Ann-Beth ;
Tuncalp, Ozge ;
Beavin, Cynthia ;
Kwok, Lorraine ;
Alkema, Leontine .
LANCET GLOBAL HEALTH, 2020, 8 (09) :E1152-E1161
[6]   Alternatives to routine ultrasound for eligibility assessment prior to early termination of pregnancy with mifepristone-misoprostol [J].
Bracken, H. ;
Clark, W. ;
Lichtenberg, E. S. ;
Schweikert, S. M. ;
Tanenhaus, J. ;
Barajas, A. ;
Alpert, L. ;
Winikoff, B. .
BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2011, 118 (01) :17-23
[7]  
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1995, MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, V44, P46
[8]   Mifepristone With Buccal Misoprostol for Medical Abortion A Systematic Review [J].
Chen, Melissa J. ;
Creinin, Mitchell D. .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2015, 126 (01) :12-21
[9]   Can mifepristone medical abortion be simplified? A review of the evidence and questions for future research [J].
Clark, Wesley H. ;
Gold, Maiji ;
Grossman, Daniel ;
Winikoff, Beverly .
CONTRACEPTION, 2007, 75 (04) :245-250
[10]   Medical abortion reporting of efficacy: the MARE guidelines [J].
Creinin, Mitchell D. ;
Chen, Melissa J. .
CONTRACEPTION, 2016, 94 (02) :97-103