Primary care and abortion provider perspectives on mail-order medication abortion: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: This qualitative study aims to assess perspectives of clinicians and clinic staff on mail-order pharmacy dispensing for medication abortion. METHODS: Participants included clinicians and staff involved in implementing a mail-order dispensing model for medication abortion at eleven clinics in seven states as part of a prospective cohort study, which began in January 2020 (before the FDA removed the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone). From June 2021 to July 2022, we invited participants at the participating clinics, including six primary care and five abortion clinics, to complete a semi-structured video interview about their experiences. We then conducted qualitative thematic analysis of interview data, summarizing themes related to perceived benefits and concerns about the mail-order model, perceived patient interest, and potential barriers to larger-scale implementation. RESULTS: We conducted 24 interviews in total with clinicians (13 physicians and one nurse practitioner) and clinic staff (n = 10). Participants highlighted perceived benefits of the mail-order model, including its potential to expand abortion services into primary care, increase patient autonomy and privacy, and to normalize abortion services. They also highlighted key logistical, clinical, and feasibility concerns about the mail-order model, and specific challenges related to integrating abortion into primary care. CONCLUSION: Clinicians and clinic staff working in primary care and abortion clinics were optimistic that mail-order dispensing of medication abortion can improve the ability of some providers to provide abortion and enable more patients to access services. The feasibility of mail-order pharmacy dispensing of medication abortion following the Supreme Court Dobbs decision is to be determined. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: Clinicaltrials.gov. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03913104. Date of registration: first submitted on April 3, 2019 and first posted on April 12, 2019.

Comparison of No-Test Telehealth and In-Person Medication Abortion.

Importance: In the US, access to medication abortion using history-based (no-test) eligibility assessment, including through telehealth and mailing of mifepristone, has grown rapidly. Additional evidence on the effectiveness and safety of these models is needed. Objective: To evaluate whether medication abortion with no-test eligibility assessment and mailing of medications is as effective as in-person care with ultrasonography and safe overall. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective, observational study with noninferiority analysis. Sites included 4 abortion-providing organizations in Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Virginia, and Washington from May 2021 to March 2023. Eligible patients were seeking medication abortion up to and including 70 days' gestation, spoke English or Spanish, and were aged 15 years or older. Exposure: Study groups reflected the model of care selected by the patient and clinicians and included: (1) no-test (telehealth) eligibility assessment and mailing of medications (no-test + mail) (n = 228); (2) no-test eligibility assessment and pickup of medications (no-test + pickup) (n = 119); or (3) in-person with ultrasonography (n = 238). Main Outcomes and Measures: Effectiveness, defined as a complete abortion without the need for repeating the mifepristone and misoprostol regimen or a follow-up procedure, and safety, defined as an abortion-related serious adverse event, including overnight hospital admission, surgery, or blood transfusion. Outcomes were derived from patient surveys and medical records. Primary analysis focused on the comparison of the no-test + mail group with the in-person with ultrasonography group. Results: The mean age of the participants (N = 585) was 27.3 years; most identified as non-Hispanic White (48.6%) or non-Hispanic Black (28.1%). Median (IQR) gestational duration was 45 days (39-53) and comparable between study groups (P = .30). Outcome data were available for 91.8% of participants. Overall effectiveness was 94.4% (95% CI, 90.7%-99.2%) in the no-test + mail group and 93.3% (95% CI, 88.3%-98.2%) in the in-person with ultrasonography group in adjusted models (adjusted risk difference, 1.2 [95% CI, -4.1 to 6.4]), meeting the prespecified 5% noninferiority margin. Serious adverse events included overnight hospitalization (n = 4), blood transfusion (n = 2), and emergency surgery (n = 1) and were reported by 1.1% (95% CI, 0.4%-2.4%) of participants, with 3 in the no-test + mail group, 3 in the in-person with ultrasonography group, and none in the no-test + pickup group. Conclusions and Relevance: This prospective, observational study found that medication abortion obtained following no-test telehealth screening and mailing of medications was associated with similar rates of complete abortion compared with in-person care with ultrasonography and met prespecified criteria for noninferiority, with a low prevalence of adverse events.

Examining service delivery patterns before and after implementation of a direct-to-patient telehealth service providing medication abortion in Australia.

In August 2016, MSI Australia (MSIA) brought to scale a direct-to-patient telehealth medication abortion service. We used MSIA's patient management systems from January 2015 to December 2018 to assess changes in the proportion of abortion patients obtaining care after 13 weeks' gestation, proportion of abortion patients obtaining medication abortion versus procedural abortion and proportion of abortion patients from regional and remote versus metropolitan areas. The proportions of abortion patients obtaining care before 13 weeks' gestational duration and those from regional and remote residents did not change between the pre- and post-periods. We observed an increase in medication abortion use that was greater among those in regional and remote areas than those in metropolitan areas.

Mail-Order Pharmacy Dispensing of Mifepristone for Medication Abortion After In-Person Screening.

Importance: Before 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration required mifepristone to be dispensed in person, limiting access to medication abortion. Objective: To estimate the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of dispensing mifepristone for medication abortion using a mail-order pharmacy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study was conducted from January 2020 to May 2022 and included 11 clinics in 7 states (5 abortion clinics and 6 primary care sites, 4 of which were new to abortion provision). Eligible participants were seeking medication abortion at 63 or fewer days' gestation, spoke English or Spanish, were age 15 years or older, and were willing to take misoprostol buccally. After assessing eligibility for medication abortion through an in-person screening, mifepristone and misoprostol were prescribed using a mail-order pharmacy. Patients had standard follow-up care with the clinic. Clinical information was collected from medical records. Consenting participants completed online surveys about their experiences 3 and 14 days after enrolling. A total of 540 participants were enrolled; 10 withdrew or did not take medication. Data were analyzed from August 2022 to December 2023. Intervention: Mifepristone, 200 mg, and misoprostol, 800 µg, prescribed to a mail-order pharmacy and mailed to participants instead of dispensed in person. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of patients with a complete abortion with medications only, reporting satisfaction with the medication abortion, and reporting timely delivery of medications. Results: Clinical outcome information was obtained and analyzed for 510 abortions (96.2%) among 506 participants (median [IQR] age, 27 [23-31] years; 506 [100%] female; 194 [38.3%] Black, 88 [17.4%] Hispanic, 141 [27.9%] White, and 45 [8.9%] multiracial/other individuals). Of these, 436 participants (85.5%; 95% CI, 82.2%-88.4%) received medications within 3 days. Complete abortion occurred after medication use in 499 cases (97.8%; 95% CI, 96.2%-98.9%). There were 24 adverse events (4.7%) for which care was sought for medication abortion symptoms; 3 patients (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.1%-1.7%) experienced serious adverse events requiring hospitalization (1 with blood transfusion); however, no adverse events were associated with mail-order dispensing. Of 477 participants, 431 (90.4%; 95% CI, 87.3%-92.9%) indicated that they would use mail-order dispensing again for abortion care, and 435 participants (91.2%; 95% CI, 88.3%-93.6%) reported satisfaction with the medication abortion. Findings were similar to those of other published studies of medication abortion with in-person dispensing. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study indicate that mail-order pharmacy dispensing of mifepristone for medication abortion was effective, acceptable to patients, and feasible, with a low prevalence of serious adverse events. This care model should be expanded to improve access to medication abortion services.

Do miscarriage care practice recommendations align with individuals' needs?: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Miscarriage is a common occurrence; yet individuals often have negative experiences when receiving miscarriage care, signaling a gap in the quality of miscarriage care. We explore the literature on individuals' experiences with miscarriage care across a variety of dimensions and assess how these experiences align with practice recommendations. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed studies in PubMed published in English through April 30, 2022, and focused on individuals' experiences with miscarriage care in healthcare settings and on practice recommendations for providing care in a variety of countries. The search returned 1812 studies; after screening, 41 studies were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Included studies reported on individuals' experiences with miscarriage care settings and accessibility, information provision, emotional support, decision-making and follow-up. Overall, individuals are often dissatisfied with their miscarriage care experiences. Practice recommendations are generally responsive to these issues. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals experiencing miscarriage are best served by care that is patient-centered, involves shared decision-making, and addresses individuals' informational and emotional needs. However, the prevalence of individuals' negative experiences with miscarriage care points to the need to address key gaps in and improve the implementation of practice recommendations. IMPLICATIONS: Future research should focus on documenting the miscarriage experiences of and developing relevant practice recommendations for communities that face the greatest barriers to care, generating evidence on the dimensions that constitute high-quality miscarriage care from patients' perspectives and assessing the barriers and facilitators to effectively implementing existing practice recommendations.

Money and place: Quantifying the types of obstacles associated with seeking an abortion after 10 weeks' gestation, 2019-2020.

OBJECTIVES: Identify factors associated with presenting for abortion after 10 weeks' gestation in a large, geographically diverse sample. STUDY DESIGN: From October 2019 to March 2020, we surveyed 1089 patients seeking abortion at seven U.S. facilities. We identified four domains of barriers: geographic, financial, logistical/personal, and legislative. Using multivariable logistic regression, we investigated the relationship between each domain and presenting for abortion after 10 weeks' gestation, overall and stratified by state policy landscape. RESULTS: One-third of participants reported geographic (33.0%), financial (33.3%), and logistical/personal (31.4%) barriers; fewer (4.8%) reported legislative barriers. One-third (30.8%) traveled over 50 miles to the clinic. One-quarter (25.2%) presented after 10 weeks' gestation. In multivariable analyses, financial barriers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06-2.09), geographic barriers (aOR = 2.05, 95% CI = 1.44-2.90), and difficulty meeting basic expenses (aOR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.15-1.89) were associated with presenting after 10 weeks' gestation across the seven clinics. Among participants accessing care at clinics in states with supportive abortion policies (n = 178), geographic barriers remained significantly associated with presenting after 10 weeks' gestation. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, geographically diverse sample, financial and geographic barriers were associated with presenting after the threshold for medication abortion. In supportive states, the association with geographic barriers persisted. Cost and geographic barriers are increasing as more states restrict abortion post-Dobbs, highlighting the urgent need to expand financial and travel support. IMPLICATIONS: People seeking abortion faced barriers before the Dobbs decision. Now, post-Dobbs, restrictions to abortion have only increased, making barriers to care even more threatening. Providing access to financial resources and transportation for people seeking abortion and expanding telehealth medication for abortion is now even more important.

Interest in and Support for Alternative Models of Medication Abortion Provision Among Patients Seeking Abortion in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Medication abortion is safe and effective, but restrictions still limit patients from accessing this method. Alternative models of medication abortion provision, namely advance provision, over-the-counter (OTC), and online, could help improve access to care for some, although there is limited evidence about abortion patients' interest in these models. METHODS: Between 2017 and 2019, we administered a cross-sectional survey to abortion patients at 45 clinics across 15 U.S. states to explore their interest in and support for advance provision, OTC, and online abortion access. We assessed relationships between sociodemographic characteristics and interest in and support for each model using bivariate logistic regressions and present perceived advantages and disadvantages of each model, as described by a subset of participants. RESULTS: Among 1,965 people enrolled, 1,759 (90%) initiated the survey. Interest in and support for advance provision was highest (72% and 82%, respectively), followed by OTC (63% and 72%) and online access (57% and 70%). In bivariate analyses, non-Hispanic Black and Asian/Pacific Islander respondents expressed lower interest and support for the online model and Alaska Native/Native American respondents expressed higher interest in an OTC model, as compared with white respondents. Among 439 participants naming advantages and disadvantages of each model, the most common advantages included convenience and having the abortion earlier. The most common disadvantages were not seeing a provider first and possibly taking pills incorrectly. CONCLUSIONS: Although most abortion patients expressed interest in and support for alternative models of medication abortion provision, variation in support across race/ethnicity highlights a need to ensure that abortion care service models meet the needs and preferences of all patients, particularly people from historically underserved populations.

A river in flux.

Extreme flooding and droughts may be the new norm for the Amazon, challenging its people and ecosystems.

Support for criminalization of self-managed abortion (SMA): A national representative survey.

OBJECTIVE: Since the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the federal right to abortion, there is a heightened need to understand public opinion about the criminalization of people who attempt to end their pregnancies outside the formal healthcare setting, referred to as self-managed abortion (SMA). We assessed U.S. attitudes about whether three forms of SMA should be legal, reported or punished: 1) using abortion pills obtained outside the healthcare system, 2) using other medications, drugs, herbs, or by drinking alcohol, and 3) using traumatic methods (inserting an object in their body or hitting their stomach). METHODS: From December 2021 to January 2022, we administered a national probability-based online survey to English- and Spanish-speaking people assigned female (AFAB, ages 15-49) or male at birth (AMAB, ages 18-49) regarding their attitudes about criminalizing SMA, using Ipsos' KnowledgePanel. We estimated weighted proportions and conducted multivariable regression analyses to identify characteristics associated with support for SMA legality and punishment (reporting to authorities, paying a fine or going to jail). RESULTS: A total of 7,016 AFAB and 360 AMAB completed the survey. People were less likely (p < .05) to agree that SMA using abortion pills should be illegal (34% of AFAB and 43% of AMAB) than other forms of SMA (36-48%), although over one-fifth were unsure (AFAB, 20-23% and AMAB, 24-27%). People were less likely to agree SMA using abortion pills should be criminalized than SMA using other drugs, medications, herbs, alcohol or by using traumatic methods. In multivariable analyses, AMAB and Christian religion were associated with agreeing that SMA using abortion pills should be illegal; people who identified as Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and experienced medical mistreatment were less likely to agree SMA with medication abortion pills should be illegal. CONCLUSIONS: Public support for criminalizing SMA is complex and varied by SMA method and form of punishment.

Association of Continuous Glucose Monitor Receipt and Diabetes Care Provider Type: A Cohort Study of West Virginia Medicaid Beneficiaries With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence of West Virginia Medicaid (WVM) beneficiaries with type 1 diabetes (T1D) with a WVM administrative claim for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) supplies by whether they received medical care from a board-certified endocrinologist. METHODS: A total of 1494 WVM beneficiaries aged 20-64 with T1D were retrospectively followed from May 2018 to April 2020. The sample consisted of 2 groups: those receiving medical care from board-certified endocrinologists and those receiving medical care from other providers. CGM prevalence is compared before and after WVM started providing insurance coverage for beneficiaries with T1D to use CGM systems in May 2019 using linear regression with and without adjustments for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Thirty-five percent of beneficiaries received care from a board-certified endocrinologist at any point during the sample period. Post-May 2019, the prevalence of WVM administrative claims for CGM supplies was significantly higher among beneficiaries receiving care from an endocrinologist compared with other providers. CONCLUSIONS: Receiving diabetes care from a board-certified endocrinologist is positively associated with having administrative claims for CGM supplies.

Obstacles to Care Mount 1 Year After Dobbs Decision.

This Viewpoint discusses the ramifications of the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision by the US Supreme Court and the state of reproductive health care in the US.

Self-Managed Abortion in the United States.

Purpose of Review: This review aims to provide up-to-date information about self-managed abortion in the USA. Recent Findings: Evidence indicates that there is growing demand for self-managed abortion in the USA as obstacles to facility-based care increase, especially since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Self-managed abortion with medications is safe and effective. Summary: Based on a nationally representative survey, the lifetime prevalence of self-managed abortion in the USA in 2017 was estimated to be 7%. People experiencing barriers to abortion care, including people of color, people with lower incomes, people in states that have restrictive abortion laws, and those living farther from facilities providing abortion care are more likely to attempt self-managed abortion. While people may use a range of methods to self-manage abortion, there is growing use of safe and effective medications, including mifepristone used together with misoprostol and misoprostol used alone; use of traumatic and dangerous methods is rare. While many people attempt to self-manage their abortion because of barriers to facility-based care, others have a preference for self-care because it is convenient, accessible, and private. While the medical risks of self-managed abortion may be few, the legal risks may be significant. Sixty-one people have been criminally investigated or arrested between 2000 and 2020 for allegedly self-managing their abortion or helping someone else do so. Clinicians play an important role in providing evidence-based information and care to patients considering or attempting self-managed abortion, as well as minimizing legal risks.

Perspectives on Alternative Models of Medication Abortion Provision Among Abortion Patients in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Restrictions on the availability of medication abortion are a barrier to accessing early abortion. People seeking medication abortion may be interested in obtaining the medications through alternative models. The purpose of this study was to explore patient perspectives on obtaining abortion medications in advance of pregnancy or over the counter (OTC). STUDY DESIGN: Between October 2017 and August 2018, we conducted 30 in-depth interviews with abortion patients who indicated support for alternative models. We recruited patients from 10 abortion clinics in states with a range of policy environments. We analyzed interviews using inductive and deductive iterative techniques. RESULTS: Participants identified logistical benefits of these alternative models, including eliminating travel to a clinic and multiple appointments, and increased privacy around decision-making. Participants were interested in advance provision for its convenience and the sense of preparedness that would come with having the pills available at home, yet some had concerns about the pills being found or stolen. Privacy was the key factor considered for OTC access, including both the privacy benefits of avoiding a clinic and the concern of having one's privacy compromised within the community if purchasing the medications in public. CONCLUSIONS: People who have previously had a medication abortion are interested in alternative methods of provision for reasons concerning convenience, privacy, and avoiding burdens related to hostile policy environments, such as long travel distances to clinics and multiple appointments. Concerns around these models were primarily safety concerns for young people. Further research is needed to evaluate the safety, effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of these alternative models of providing medication abortion.

Accuracy of Self-assessment of Gestational Duration Among Adolescents Seeking Abortion Using Information in Addition to Date of Last Menstrual Period.

This diagnostic study evaluates whether using additional information beyond the date of last menstrual period is associated with improved accuracy of self-assessed gestational duration among adolescents seeking abortion.

Health care provider reporting practices related to self-managed abortion.

BACKGROUND: Health care providers reporting patients to government authorities is a main way people attempting self-managed abortion (SMA) become exposed to legal risks. Little is known about health care provider decision-making regarding SMA reporting. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 37 clinicians who provided care in hospital-based obstetrics or emergency departments (13 obstetricians/gynecologists, two advance practice registered nurses providing obstetrics care, 12 emergency medicine physicians, and 10 family medicine physicians) throughout the United States. The interview guide asked participants to describe one or more cases of caring for a patient who may have attempted SMA and about related reporting decisions. We coded responses to answer two questions: What comes to mind for health care providers when asked to think about experiences caring for a patient who may have attempted SMA? Based on health care provider experiences, how might people who providers suspect may have attempted SMA end up reported? RESULTS: About half of participants had cared for someone who may have attempted SMA for that pregnancy. Only two mentioned SMA with misoprostol. Most participants described cases where they were unsure whether the patient had attempted to end their pregnancy on purpose. In most instances, participants mentioned that that the possibility of reporting never occurred to them nor came up. In some cases, participants described a reporting "adjacent" practice - e.g. beginning processes that could lead to substance use, domestic violence, or self-injury/suicide-related reports - or considered reporting related to a perceived need to report abortion complications. In two cases, hospital staff reported to the police and/or Child Protective Services related to the SMA attempt. These involved passing of a fetus after 20 weeks outside the hospital and a domestic violence incident. CONCLUSION: Reporting patients who may have attempted SMA may occur via provider perception of a need to report abortion complications and fetal demises, particularly at later gestations, and other reporting requirements (e.g. substance use, domestic violence, child maltreatment, suicide/self-harm).

Feasibility and Acceptability of At-Home Routine Pregnancy Testing in the United States: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate the acceptability of regular self-testing among people with increased risk for delayed pregnancy recognition when provided with free at-home pregnancy tests and to explore the feasibility of this intervention among a larger sample. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2019-2020, we recruited participants across the United States by using flyers posted online and in community settings and abortion clinics. We purposively sampled people with pregnancy capacity who were 18 to 24 years old, had irregular menses, or had a recent second-trimester abortion. Participants were mailed pregnancy tests and instructions. Participants received text message reminders to test monthly over a 3-month period and were asked to text back results. Participants also completed online surveys at baseline, after 1 month, and after 3 months. A purposive subsample of participants was selected to participate in semi-structured interviews. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis of interview guide topics and emergent themes. RESULTS: 61 participants were enrolled. Fifty-four participants (90%) responded to the text reminders and 52 (85%) reported testing in all 3 months. Fifty-eight (95%) said tests were easy to use, 59 (97%) said the results were clear, and all participants found it convenient to text their results. Fourteen participants completed qualitative interviews. All described continuing to test after the study and indicated high acceptability for text reminders. Interviewees described convenience and cost as primary benefits for preferring at-home pregnancy testing. CONCLUSIONS: Regular self-testing and texting results is feasible and acceptable to participants provided with free at-home urine pregnancy tests. These results can inform future studies designed to investigate the effect of regular self-testing on timing of pregnancy detection to facilitate early entry to prenatal care or early abortion.

Out-of-State Travel for Abortion among Texas Residents following an Executive Order Suspending In-State Services during the Coronavirus Pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, existing and new abortion restrictions constrained people's access to abortion care. We assessed Texas abortion patients' out-of-state travel patterns before and during implementation of a state executive order that prohibited most abortions for 30 days in 2020. We received data on Texans who obtained abortions between February and May 2020 at 25 facilities in six nearby states. We estimated weekly trends in the number of out-of-state abortions related to the order using segmented regression models. We compared the distribution of out-of-state abortions by county-level economic deprivation and distance traveled. The number of Texas out-of-state abortions increased 14% the week after (versus before) the order was implemented (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.14; 95% CI: 0.49, 2.63), and increased weekly while the order remained in effect (IRR = 1.64; 95% CI: 1.23, 2.18). Residents of the most economically disadvantaged counties accounted for 52% and 12% of out-of-state abortions before and during the order, respectively (p < 0.001). Before the order, 38% of Texans traveled ≥250 miles one way, whereas during the order 81% traveled ≥250 miles (p < 0.001). Texans' long-distance travel for out-of-state abortion care and the socioeconomic composition of those less likely to travel reflect potential burdens imposed by future abortion bans.