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

被引:200
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
[21]  
Meurice M., 2020, AUTHOREA, DOI [10.22541/au.160691768.87050587/v1, DOI 10.22541/AU.160691768.87050587/V1]
[22]   Symptom-free women at increased risk of ectopic pregnancy: should we screen? [J].
Mol, BWJ ;
van der Veen, F ;
Bossuyt, PMM .
ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2002, 81 (07) :661-672
[23]   Abortion regulation in Europe in the era of COVID-19: a spectrum of policy responses [J].
Moreau, Caroline ;
Shankar, Mridula ;
Glasier, Anna ;
Cameron, Sharon ;
Gemzell-Danielsson, Kristina .
BMJ SEXUAL & REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, 2021, 47 (04)
[24]   Effectiveness of self-managed medication abortion between 13 and 24 weeks gestation: A retrospective review of case records from accompaniment groups in Argentina, Chile, and Ecuador [J].
Moseson, Heidi ;
Bullard, Kimberley A. ;
Cisternas, Carolina ;
Grosso, Belen ;
Vera, Veronica ;
Gerdts, Caitlin .
CONTRACEPTION, 2020, 102 (02) :91-98
[25]  
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), 2019, NG126 NICE
[26]  
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, 2019, AB CAR EV REV A ACC
[27]  
NHS Health Research Authority, 2020, DO I NEED NHS REC RE
[28]   Access to and sustainability of abortion services: a systematic review and meta-analysis for the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence-new clinical guidelines for England [J].
O'Shea, Laura E. ;
Hawkins, James E. ;
Lord, Jonathan ;
Schmidt-Hansen, Mia ;
Hasler, Elise ;
Cameron, Sharon ;
Cameron, Iain T. .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION UPDATE, 2020, 26 (06) :886-903
[29]   Commentary: No-test medication abortion: A sample protocol for increasing access during a pandemic and beyond [J].
Raymond, Elizabeth G. ;
Grossman, Daniel ;
Mark, Alice ;
Upadhyay, Ushma D. ;
Dean, Gillian ;
Creinin, Mitchell D. ;
Coplon, Leah ;
Perritt, Jamila ;
Atrio, Jessica M. ;
Taylor, DeShawn ;
Gold, Marji .
CONTRACEPTION, 2020, 101 (06) :361-366
[30]   The British 1967 Abortion Act-still fit for purpose? [J].
Regan, Lesley ;
Glasier, Anna .
LANCET, 2017, 390 (10106) :1936-1937