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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Unintended Pregnancy and Abortion in the US Navy, 2016.

BACKGROUND: The unintended pregnancy rate in the US military is higher than among civilians. While 42% of unintended pregnancies end in abortion among civilian women, there are no data on the prevalence of abortion in the military overall or by service branch. OBJECTIVE: This analysis was conducted to estimate unintended pregnancy rates and the percentage of unintended pregnancies that resulted in abortion among active-duty US Navy members aged 44 years or younger reporting female gender in 2016. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey data from the 2016 Navy Pregnancy and Parenthood Survey, collected from August to November 2016. PARTICIPANTS: Our sample included 3,423 active-duty US Navy members aged 44 years or younger reporting female gender, generated from a stratified random sample of 38% of all active-duty Navy women in pay grades E2-E9 and O1-O5 in 2016; the survey had a 20% response rate for females. MAIN MEASURES: We calculated pregnancy and unintended pregnancy rates, the percentage of pregnancies that were unintended, and the percentage of unintended pregnancies resulting in birth and abortion in the prior fiscal year. KEY RESULTS: Overall, the self-reported unintended pregnancy rate was 52 per 1,000 participants and 38.1% of pregnancies were unintended. The adjusted unintended pregnancy rate accounting for abortion underreporting was 68 per 1,000 participants. Unintended pregnancy rates were highest among individuals who were younger (aged 18-24) and in enlisted pay grades, compared to their counterparts. Six percent reported their unintended pregnancy resulted in abortion. Six respondents reported becoming pregnant while deployed; none of these pregnancies resulted in abortion. CONCLUSIONS: In this first study to report on abortion prevalence among US servicemembers, we found the proportion of unintended pregnancies resulting in abortion among a sample of US Navy members in 2016 was much lower than civilians, yet unintended pregnancy rates were higher.

Accuracy of self-assessment of gestational duration among people seeking abortion.

BACKGROUND: Mifepristone, used together with misoprostol, is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for medication abortion through 10 weeks' gestation. Although in-person ultrasound is frequently used to establish medication abortion eligibility, previous research demonstrates that people seeking abortion early in pregnancy can accurately self-assess gestational duration using the date of their last menstrual period. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we establish the screening performance of a broader set of questions for self-assessment of gestational duration among a sample of people seeking abortion at a wide range of gestations. STUDY DESIGN: We surveyed patients seeking abortion at 7 facilities before ultrasound and compared self-assessments of gestational duration using 11 pregnancy dating questions with measurements on ultrasound. For individual pregnancy dating questions and combined questions, we established screening performance focusing on metrics of diagnostic accuracy, defined as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity (or the proportion of ineligible participants who correctly screened as ineligible for medication abortion), and proportion of false negatives (ie, the proportion of all participants who erroneously screened as eligible for medication abortion). We tested for differences in sensitivity across individual and combined questions using McNemar's test, and for differences in accuracy using the area under the receiver operating curve and Sidak adjusted P values. RESULTS: One-quarter (25%) of 1089 participants had a gestational duration of >70 days on ultrasound. Using the date of last menstrual period alone demonstrated 83.5% sensitivity (95% confidence interval, 78.4-87.9) in identifying participants with gestational durations of >70 days on ultrasound, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.85) and a proportion of false negatives of 4.0%. A composite measure of responses to questions on number of weeks pregnant, date of last menstrual period, and date they got pregnant demonstrated 89.1% sensitivity (95% confidence interval, 84.7-92.6) and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.88), with 2.7% of false negatives. A simpler question set focused on being >10 weeks or >2 months pregnant or having missed 2 or more periods had comparable sensitivity (90.7%; 95% confidence interval, 86.6-93.9) and proportion of false negatives (2.3%), but with a slightly lower area under the receiver operating curve (0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.84). CONCLUSION: In a sample representative of people seeking abortion nationally, broadening the screening questions for assessing gestational duration beyond the date of the last menstrual period resulted in improved accuracy and sensitivity of self-assessment at the 70-day threshold for medication abortion. Ultrasound assessment for medication abortion may not be necessary, especially when requiring ultrasound could increase COVID-19 risk or healthcare costs, restrict access, or limit patient choice.

Financial Hardships Caused by Out-of-Pocket Abortion Costs in Texas, 2018.

Objectives. To identify financial hardships related to costs of obtaining abortion care in Texas, which has the highest uninsured rate in the United States and restricts insurance coverage for abortions. Methods. We surveyed patients seeking abortion at 12 Texas clinics in 2018 regarding costs and financial hardships related to abortion care. We compared mean out-of-pocket costs and the percentage reporting hardships across income and insurance categories. Results. Of 603 respondents, 42% were Latinx, 25% White, and 21% Black or African American, and most (62.0%) reported having low incomes (< 200% federal poverty level). Mean out-of-pocket costs were $634, which varied little across insurance groups. Patients with low incomes were more likely to obtain financial assistance from an abortion fund than were wealthier patients (12.3% vs 1.6%, respectively; P < .05). Financial hardships related to abortion costs were more common among uninsured (57.6%) and publicly insured (55.1%) patients than those with private insurance (48.2%). One in 5 (19.8%) uninsured respondents delayed buying food to pay for abortion care. Conclusions. Restrictions on insurance coverage for abortions result in high out-of-pocket costs and major financial hardships for most patients with low incomes in Texas. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(5):758-761. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306701).

Disruptions to Abortion Care in Louisiana During Early Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objectives. To examine changes in abortions in Louisiana before and after the COVID-19 pandemic onset and assess whether variations in abortion service availability during this time might explain observed changes. Methods. We collected monthly service data from abortion clinics in Louisiana and neighboring states among Louisiana residents (January 2018‒May 2020) and assessed changes in abortions following pandemic onset. We conducted mystery client calls to 30 abortion clinics in Louisiana and neighboring states (April‒July 2020) and examined the percentage of open and scheduling clinics and median waits. Results. The number of abortions per month among Louisiana residents in Louisiana clinics decreased 31% (incidence rate ratio = 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.59, 0.79) from before to after pandemic onset, while the odds of having a second-trimester abortion increased (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.91; 95% CI = 1.10, 3.33). The decrease was not offset by an increase in out-of-state abortions. In Louisiana, only 1 or 2 (of 3) clinics were open (with a median wait > 2 weeks) through early May. Conclusions. The COVID-19 pandemic onset was associated with a significant decrease in the number of abortions and increase in the proportion of abortions provided in the second trimester among Louisiana residents. These changes followed service disruptions.

Perspectives on self-managed abortion among providers in hospitals along the Texas-Mexico border.

BACKGROUND: Following self-managed abortion (SMA), or a pregnancy termination attempt outside of the formal health system, some patients may seek care in an emergency department. Information about provider experiences treating these patients in hospital settings on the Texas-Mexico border is lacking. METHODS: The study team conducted semi-structured interviews with physicians, advanced practice clinicians, and nurses who had experience with patients presenting with early pregnancy complications in emergency and/or labor and delivery departments in five hospitals near the Texas-Mexico border. Interview questions focused on respondents' roles at the hospital, knowledge of abortion services and laws, perspectives on SMA trends, experiences treating patients presenting after SMA, and potential gaps in training related to abortion. Researchers conducted interviews in person between October 2017 and January 2018, and analyzed transcripts using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Most of the 54 participants interviewed said that the care provided to SMA patients was, and should be, the same as for patients presenting after miscarriage. The majority had treated a patient they suspected or confirmed had attempted SMA; typically, these cases required only expectant management and confirmation of pregnancy termination, or treatment for incomplete abortion. In rare cases, further clinical intervention was required. Many providers lacked clinical and legal knowledge about abortion, including local resources available. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment provided to SMA patients is similar to that provided to patients presenting after early pregnancy loss. Lack of provider knowledge about abortion and SMA, despite their involvement with SMA patients, highlights a need for improved training.

"I'll just deal with this on my own": a qualitative exploration of experiences with self-managed abortion in the United States.

BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence indicates that some people seek options to terminate a pregnancy without medical assistance, but experiences doing so have largely been documented only among people accessing a clinic-based abortion. We aim to describe self-managed abortion (SMA) experiences of people recruited outside of clinics, including their motivations for SMA, pregnancy confirmation and decision-making processes, method choices, and clinical outcomes. METHODS: In 2017, we conducted 14 in-depth interviews with self-identified females of reproductive age who recently reported in an online survey administered to Ipsos' KnowledgePanel that, since 2000, they had attempted SMA while living in the United States. We asked participants about their reproductive histories, experiences seeking reproductive health care, and SMA experiences. We used an iterative process to develop codes and analyzed transcripts using thematic content analysis methods. RESULTS: Motivations and perceptions of effectiveness varied by whether participants had confirmed the pregnancy prior to SMA. Participants who confirmed their pregnancies chose SMA because it was convenient, accessible, and private. Those who did not test for pregnancy were motivated by a preference for autonomy and felt empowered by the ability to try something on their own before seeking facility-based care. Participants prioritized methods that were safe and available, though not always effective. Most used herbs or over-the-counter medications; none used self-sourced abortion medications, mifepristone and/or misoprostol. Five participants obtained facility-based abortions and one participant decided to continue the pregnancy after attempting SMA. The remaining eight reported being no longer pregnant after SMA. None of the participants sought care for  SMA complications; one participant saw a provider to confirm abortion completion. CONCLUSIONS: There are many types of SMA experiences. In addition to those who pursue SMA as a last resort (after facing barriers to facility-based care) or as a first resort (because they prefer homeopathic remedies), our findings show that some individuals view SMA as a potential interim step worth trying after suspecting pregnancy and before accessing facility-based care. These people in particular would benefit from a medication abortion product available over the counter, online, or in the form of a missed-period pill.

Some people in the United States (US) attempt to end a pregnancy on their own without medical supervision. What we know about this experience comes from studies focused on people who go to clinics. In this study, we conducted 14 interviews with self-identified women ages 18­49 who recently reported attempting to end a pregnancy on their own and who were recruited outside of the clinic setting. We asked participants about their fertility histories, experiences seeking reproductive health care, and experiences ending a pregnancy without medical assistance. Those who took a pregnancy test and then chose to end the pregnancy on their own did so because it was convenient, accessible, and private. Those who did not test for pregnancy felt empowered by the ability to try something on their own before seeking facility-based care. All participants prioritized methods that were safe and available, though not always effective. After they attempted to end the pregnancy on their own, five participants accessed abortion care in facilities, one decided to continue the pregnancy, and eight were no longer pregnant. Our findings show that, in addition to people who end a pregnancy on their own as a last resort (after facing barriers to facility-based care) or as a first resort (because of preferences for homeopathic methods), a third group values having an interim step to try after suspecting pregnancy and before accessing facility-based care. These people would particularly benefit from a medication abortion product available over the counter, online, or in the form of a missed-period pill.

Pharmacists' knowledge, perspectives, and experiences with mifepristone dispensing for medication abortion.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) restricts dispensing of mifepristone for medication abortion to certified health care providers at clinical facilities, thus prohibiting pharmacist dispensing. Allowing mifepristone dispensing by pharmacists could improve access to medication abortion. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of pharmacists dispensing mifepristone to patients who have undergone evaluation for eligibility and counseling for medication abortion by a clinician. METHODS: Before providing a study training on medication abortion, we administered baseline surveys to pharmacists who participated in a multisite mifepristone-dispensing intervention. The survey assessed medication abortion knowledge-using a 15-item score-and perceptions about the benefits and challenges of the model. We administered follow-up surveys in the study's final month that also assessed the pharmacists' satisfaction and experiences with mifepristone dispensing. To investigate the association of the study intervention with the pharmacists' knowledge, perceptions, and experiences dispensing mifepristone, we conducted multivariable linear regression analyses using generalized estimating equation models, accounting for clustering by individual. RESULTS: Among the 72 pharmacists invited from 6 pharmacies, 47 (65%) completed the baseline surveys, and 56 (78%) received training. At the study's end (mean 18 months later), 43 of the 56 pharmacists who received training (77%) completed the follow-up surveys. At follow-up, 36 (83%) respondents were very or somewhat satisfied with mifepristone dispensing, and 24 (56%) reported experiencing no challenges dispensing mifepristone. Four (6%) of the 72 pharmacists invited objected to participating in mifepristone dispensing. In regression analyses, average knowledge scores, perceived ease of implementation, and level of support for the pharmacist-dispensing model were higher at follow-up (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Most pharmacists were willing to be trained, dispensed mifepristone with few challenges when given the opportunity, were satisfied with the model, and had higher knowledge levels at follow-up. Our findings support removal of FDA's restriction on pharmacist dispensing of mifepristone.

Texas women's decisions and experiences regarding self-managed abortion.

BACKGROUND: Prior research has shown that a small proportion of U.S. women attempt to self-manage their abortion. The objective of this study is to describe Texas women's motivations for and experiences with attempts to self-manage an abortion. The objective of this study is to describe Texas women's motivations for and experiences with attempts to self-manage an abortion. METHODS: We report results from two data sources: two waves of surveys with women seeking abortion services at Texas facilities in 2012 and 2014 and qualitative interviews with women who reported attempting to self-manage their abortion while living in Texas at some time between 2009 and 2014. We report the prevalence of attempted self-managed abortion for the current pregnancy among survey respondents, and describe interview participants' decision-making and experiences with abortion self-management. RESULTS: 6.9% (95% CI 5.2-9.0%) of abortion clients (n = 721) reported they had tried to end their current pregnancy on their own before coming to the clinic for an abortion. Interview participants (n = 18) described multiple reasons for their decision to attempt to self-manage abortion. No single reason was enough for any participant to consider self-managing their abortion; however, poverty intersected with and layered upon other obstacles to leave them feeling they had no other option. Ten interview participants reported having a complete abortion after taking medications, most of which was identified as misoprostol. None of the six women who used home remedies alone reported having a successful abortion; many described using these methods for several days or weeks which ultimately did not work, resulting in delays for some, greater distress, and higher costs. CONCLUSION: These findings point to a need to ensure that women who may consider self-managed abortion have accurate information about effective methods, what to expect in the process, and where to go for questions and follow-up care. There is increasing evidence that given accurate information and access to clinical consultation, self-managed abortion is as safe as clinic-based abortion care and that many women find it acceptable, while others may prefer to use clinic-based abortion care.

Self-reported Physical Health of Women Who Did and Did Not Terminate Pregnancy After Seeking Abortion Services: A Cohort Study.

Background: Research demonstrates worse short-term morbidity and mortality associated with childbirth than with abortion, but little research has examined long-term physical health in women with unwanted pregnancies after abortion versus childbirth. Objective: To examine the physical health of women who seek and receive or are denied abortion. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: 30 U.S. abortion facilities from 2008 to 2010. Participants: Of 1132 women seeking abortion who consented to participate, 874 were included in this analysis (328 who had first-trimester abortion, 383 who had second-trimester abortion, and 163 who gave birth). Measurements: Self-reported overall health; chronic abdominal, pelvic, back, and joint pain; chronic headaches or migraines; obesity; asthma; gestational and nongestational hypertension and diabetes; and hyperlipidemia were assessed semiannually for 5 years. Mortality was assessed by using verbal autopsy and public records. Results: No significant differences were observed in self-rated health or chronic pain after first-trimester versus second-trimester abortion. At 5 years, 27% (95% CI, 21% to 34%) of women who gave birth reported fair or poor health compared with 20% (CI, 16% to 24%) of women who had first-trimester abortion and 21% (CI, 18% to 25%) who had second-trimester abortion. Women who gave birth also reported more chronic headaches or migraines and joint pain, but experienced similar levels of other types of chronic pain and obesity. Gestational hypertension was reported by 9.4% of participants who gave birth. Eight of 1132 participants died during follow-up, 2 in the postpartum period. Maternal mortality did not differ statistically by group. Limitation: Self-reported outcome measures, uncertain generalizability, and 41% loss to follow-up at 5 years. Conclusion: Although some argue that abortion is detrimental to women's health, these study data indicate that physical health is no worse in women who sought and underwent abortion than in women who were denied abortion. Indeed, differences emerged suggesting worse health among those who gave birth. Primary Funding Source: An anonymous foundation.

The Impact of the Flint Water Crisis on Fertility.

Flint switched its public water source in April 2014, increasing exposure to lead and other contaminants. We compare the change in the fertility rate and in health at birth in Flint before and after the water switch to the changes in other cities in Michigan. We find that Flint fertility rates decreased by 12 % and that overall health at birth decreased. This effect on health at birth is a function of two countervailing mechanisms: (1) negative selection of less healthy embryos and fetuses not surviving (raising the average health of survivors), and (2) those who survived being scarred (decreasing average health). We untangle this to find a net of selection scarring effect of 5.4 % decrease in birth weight. Because of long-term effects of in utero exposure, these effects are likely lower bounds on the overall effects of this exposure.

Reducing underreporting of stigmatized pregnancy outcomes: results from a mixed-methods study of self-managed abortion in Texas using the list-experiment method.

BACKGROUND: Accurately measuring stigmatized experiences is a challenge across reproductive health research. In this study, we tested a novel method - the list experiment - that aims to reduce underreporting of sensitive events by asking participants to report how many of a list of experiences they have had, not which ones. We applied the list experiment to measure "self-managed abortion" - any attempt by a person to end a pregnancy on one's own, outside of a clinical setting - a phenomenon that may be underreported in surveys due to a desire to avoid judgement. METHODS: We administered a double list experiment on self-managed abortion to a Texas-wide representative sample of 790 women of reproductive age in 2015. Participants were asked how many of a list of health experiences they had experienced; self-managed abortion was randomly added as an item to half of the lists. A difference in the average number of items reported by participants between lists with and without self-managed abortion provided a population level estimate of self-managed abortion. In 2017, we conducted cognitive interviews with women of reproductive age in four states to understand how women (1) interpreted the list experiment question format, and (2) interpreted the list item on prior experiences attempting to self-manage an abortion. RESULTS: Results from this list experiment estimated that 8% of women of reproductive age in Texas have ever self-managed an abortion. This number was higher than expected, thus, the researchers conducted cognitive interviews to better understand how people interpreted the list experiment on self-managed abortion. Some women interpreted "on your own" to mean "without the knowledge of friends or family", as opposed to "without medical assistance", as intended. CONCLUSION: The list experiment may have reduced under-reporting of self-managed abortion; however, the specific phrasing of the list item may also have unintentionally increased reporting of abortion experiences not considered "self-managed." High participation in and comprehension of the list experiment, however, suggests that this method is worthy of further exploration as tool for measuring stigmatized experiences.

Experiences with pain of early medical abortion: qualitative results from Nepal, South Africa, and Vietnam.

BACKGROUND: Medical abortion (MA) has become an increasingly popular choice for women even where surgical abortion services are available. Pain is often cited by women as one of the worst aspects of the MA experience, yet we know little about women's experience with pain management during the process, particularly in low resource settings. The aim of this study is to better understand women's experiences of pain with MA and strategies for improving quality of care. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted as part of a three-arm randomized, controlled trial in Nepal, Vietnam, and South Africa to investigate the effect of prophylactic pain management on pain during MA through 63 days' gestation. We purposively sampled seven parous and seven nulliparous women with a range of reported maximum pain levels from each country, totaling 42 participants. Thematic content analysis focused on MA pain experiences and management of pain compared to menstruation, labor, and previous abortions. RESULTS: MA is relatively less painful compared to giving birth and relatively more painful than menstruation, based on four factors: pain intensity, duration, associated symptoms and side effects, and response to pain medications. We identified four types of pain trajectories: minimal overall pain, brief intense pain, intermittent pain, and constant pain. Compared to previous abortion experiences, MA pain was less extreme (but sometimes longer in duration), more private, and less frightening. There were no distinct trends in pain trajectories by treatment group, parity, or country. Methods of coping with pain in MA and menstruation are similar in each respective country context, and use of analgesics was relatively uncommon. The majority of respondents reported that counseling about pain management before the abortion and support during the abortion process helped ease their pain and emotional stress. CONCLUSIONS: Pain management during MA is increasingly essential to ensuring quality abortion care in light of the growing proportion of abortions completed with medication around the world. Incorporating a discussion about pain expectations and pain management strategies into pre-MA counseling and providing access to information and support during the MA process could improve the quality of care and experiences of MA patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613000017729 , registered January 8, 2013.