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.

Dear White People.

We are living in unprecedented times. While the world is grappling with COVID-19, we find the horrors of racism looming equally large as we, yet again, confront lurid deaths in the center of the news cycle of Black and brown people from police bias and brutality. Those of us who have been championing antiracism and justice work and bearing the burden of the "minority tax" have been overwhelmed by sudden asks from our well-intentioned White colleagues of how to best respond. In the tone of the Netflix series, "Dear White People," we further emphasize that we are not alone in trying to reach out to you, our White colleagues and leaders. Please hear our story and heed our call to action.

Reproductive coercion: an under-recognized challenge for primary care patients.

BACKGROUND: Reproductive coercion impacts many women of reproductive age. OBJECTIVES: We sought to explore how reproductive coercion, including pregnancy coercion and birth control sabotage, impacts women in a primary care population. METHODS: We administered a survey to women accessing care at a family medicine clinic in the Bronx, NY. Reproductive coercion was defined as a positive response to at least one of five questions adapted from previous studies. We assessed the association of reproductive and demographic characteristics with a lifetime history of reproductive coercion. RESULTS: At least one form of reproductive coercion was reported by 24% of the 97 respondents. Current lack of personal safety and a history of transactional sex for money or a place to stay were significantly associated with having experienced reproductive coercion (all P ≤ 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Reproductive coercion was common among women of reproductive age at this urban family medicine clinic in an underserved community, and was associated with other forms of control and violence. Clinicians are advised to discuss birth control sabotage and pregnancy coercion with their patients.

What Women Want: A Qualitative Study of Contraception in Jail.

OBJECTIVES: We undertook this study to understand women's perceptions of receiving contraception at Rikers Island Jail. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews in 2011 to 2012 with 32 women incarcerated at Rikers Island Jail. We analyzed the data using standard qualitative techniques. RESULTS: Almost all participants believed that contraception should be provided at the jail. However, many said they would hesitate to use these services themselves. Reservations were caused in part by women's negative views of health care services at the jail. Fears about the safety of birth control, difficulties associated with follow-up in the community, and desire for pregnancy were other factors that influenced interest in accepting contraception. CONCLUSIONS: Contraception at the jail must be provided by trusted medical providers delivering high quality care with the goal of allowing women to control their own fertility; this would ensure that women could access birth control and cease using birth control when desired.

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.

Abortion Provision by Family Physicians After Integrated Opt-Out Training in Residency.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Reproductive Health Education In Family Medicine(RHEDI) supports family medicine residency programs to establish a required rotation in sexual and reproductive health (SRH), including abortion. We evaluated long-term training effects by examining the practice patterns of family physicians 2 to 6 years after residency graduation, to determine whether and how the practices and abortion provision of those with enhanced SRH training differ from those who did not receive this training. METHODS: We invited 1,949 family physicians who completed residency training between 2010 and 2018 to complete an anonymous online survey about residency training and current provision of SRH services. RESULTS: We received 714 completed surveys, a 36.6% response rate. Of those who received routine abortion training during residency (n=445), 24% had provided abortion after graduation, significantly more than the 13% providing abortion who had not received routine training during residency, and much higher than the 3% provision rate found in a recent representative study. Abortion-trained respondents were also more likely than the comparison group to have provided other SRH care. For both medication and procedural abortion, respondents who trained in the family medicine setting were significantly more likely to have provided abortion after residency than those who trained only in dedicated abortion clinics (31% vs 18%, and 33% vs 13%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Abortion training during family medicine residency is strongly linked to postresidency abortion provision, and is crucial in preparing family physicians to meet the full range of their patients' reproductive health care needs.

Mailing abortion pills does not delay care: A cohort study comparing mailed to in-person dispensing of abortion medications in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Given the substantial barriers to abortion access in the United States, many clinics now mail patients abortion medications. We examined whether dispensing the medications by mail prolonged time to medication use. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed data from no-test medication abortions with medication provided either by mail or in a clinic from 11 United States clinics from February 2020 to January 2021. We examined mean number of days from patients' first contact with the clinic to mifepristone ingestion, its two-component intervals (first contact to medication dispensing and dispensing to mifepristone ingestion), and pregnancy duration at mifepristone ingestion. We used Poisson regression to compare mean outcomes across three dispensing methods: in-person, mailed from the clinic, and mailed from a mail-order pharmacy. RESULTS: Among the 2600 records, patients took mifepristone on average at 49 days of gestation (95% CI, 47-51) and 7 days (95% CI, 4-10) after first contact. Mean time from first contact to mifepristone ingestion was 6 days when medications were dispensed in-person and 9 days when mailed (p = 0.38). While time from first contact to dispensing was similar across methods (6 days in-person, 5 days mailed, p = 0.77), more time elapsed from dispensing to mifepristone ingestion when medications were mailed (4 days from clinic, 5 days from mail-order pharmacy) versus dispensed in-person (0.3 days, p < 0.001). Time to mifepristone ingestion was shorter with higher pregnancy duration. Pregnancy duration at ingestion was similar across methods (48 days in-person, 50 days mailed). CONCLUSIONS: Mailing medications did not significantly prolong time from patients' first contact with the clinic to mifepristone ingestion or increase pregnancy duration at mifepristone ingestion. IMPLICATIONS: Abortion providers should offer a range of medication abortion dispensing options, prioritizing patient preference.

Attitudes and preferences toward the provision of medication abortion in an urban academic internal medicine practice.

BACKGROUND: Mifepristone offers internal medicine doctors the opportunity to greatly expand access to abortion for their patients. Almost 70% of pregnancy terminations, however, still occur in specialized clinics. No studies have examined the preferences of Internal Medicine patients specifically. OBJECTIVE: Determine whether patient preference is a reason for the limited uptake of medication abortion among internal medicine physicians. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 18-45 recruited from the waiting room in an urban academic internal medicine clinic. MEASURES: A semi-structured questionnaire was used to determine risk of unintended pregnancy and attitudes toward abortion. Support for provision of medication abortion in the internal medicine clinic was assessed with a yes/no question, followed by the open-ended question, "Why do you think this clinic should or should not offer medication abortion?" Subjects were asked whether it was very important, somewhat important, or not important for the internal medicine clinic to provide medication abortion. KEY RESULTS: Of 102 women who met inclusion criteria, 90 completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 88%. Twenty-two percent were at risk of unintended pregnancy. 46.7% had had at least one lifetime abortion. Among those who would consider having an abortion, 67.7% responded yes to the question, "Do you think this clinic should offer medication abortions?" and 83.9% stated that it was "very important" or "somewhat important" to offer this service. Of women open to having an abortion, 87.1% stated that they would be interested in receiving a medication abortion from their primary care doctor. CONCLUSIONS: A clinically significant proportion of women in this urban internal medicine clinic were at risk of unintended pregnancy. Among those open to having an abortion, a wide majority would consider receiving it from their internal medicine doctor. The provision of medication abortion by internal medicine physicians has the potential to greatly expand abortion access for women.

Abortion Aftercare Instructions in the United States: A Content Analysis of Patient Handouts.

BACKGROUND: At the clinical visit for abortion care, patients typically receive a handout with information about what to expect and how to care for themselves after the abortion. Published guidelines give little to no guidance regarding the content of postabortion instructions. METHODS: We collected aftercare instruction handouts for first trimester procedural and medication abortion from abortion clinics throughout the United States. Instructions were coded and analyzed using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: Of the 84 unique aftercare handouts we received, most included information about symptoms to expect (included in 98% of procedural handouts, 97% of medication handouts), how to manage symptoms (included in 100% of procedural handouts, 100% of medication handouts), and specific behaviors to avoid (included in 94% of procedural handouts, 66% of medication handouts). The most common behavioral avoidance instructions were "pelvic rest" (included in 90% of procedural handouts, 63% of medication handouts), avoiding strenuous activity (included in 61% of procedural handouts, 29% of medication handouts), and avoiding submersion in water (included in 41% of procedural handouts, 26% of medication handouts). Handouts varied with regard to the extent and duration of specific recommendations. They also varied in tone, word choice, and other characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: There exists a wide range of abortion aftercare instructions throughout the United States. Inconsistency among instructions may reflect a lack of published, evidence-based clinical guidelines. Standardizing aftercare instruction handouts based on patient-oriented evidence could improve patient experience after abortion.

Exploring the experience of IUD self-removal in the United States through posts on internet forums.

OBJECTIVE: Some intrauterine devices (IUD) users self-remove their IUDs, and these experiences are not well understood. This study examines what IUD users post in internet forums about their experience, as well as advice and questions shared among IUD users about self-removal. STUDY DESIGN: This study uses qualitative analysis of internet health and parenting forum postings about IUD self-removal identified from an internet search engine. We analyzed the data using inductive and deductive content analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-eight sites, containing 1742 posts by 1197 unique users, satisfied our eligibility criteria. Users reported successful IUD self-removal attempts as "quick," "easy," and "painless"; it was rare to encounter IUD users describing complications of their self-removal attempts. Users described unsuccessful attempts as failure to find or grasp strings. Many IUD users described their successful removal techniques and gave advice to other users who were struggling with self-removal. Users frequently utilized the forum to ask questions about IUD self-removal methods and timing, pain, when to seek medical intervention, and the effects on future fertility. CONCLUSIONS: Posts describing successful IUD self-removal report positive experiences. IUD users who have difficulty with self-removal may utilize internet forums to learn from others' experiences. IMPLICATIONS: Exploring IUD users' experiences with and questions about self-removal may inform strategies to develop better resources for those who desire self-removal.

Outcomes and Safety of History-Based Screening for Medication Abortion: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study.

Importance: Screening for medication abortion eligibility typically includes ultrasonography or pelvic examination. To reduce physical contact during the COVID-19 pandemic, many clinicians stopped requiring tests before medication abortion and instead screened patients for pregnancy duration and ectopic pregnancy risk by history alone. However, few US-based studies have been conducted on the outcomes and safety of this novel model of care. Objective: To evaluate the outcomes and safety of a history-based screening, no-test approach to medication abortion care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients obtaining a medication abortion without preabortion ultrasonography or pelvic examination between February 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, at 14 independent, Planned Parenthood, academic-affiliated, and online-only clinics throughout the US. Exposures: Medications for abortion provided without preabortion ultrasonography or pelvic examination and dispensed to patients in person or by mail. Main Outcomes and Measures: Effectiveness, defined as complete abortion after 200 µg of mifepristone and up to 1600 µg of misoprostol without additional intervention, and major abortion-related adverse events, defined as hospital admission, major surgery, or blood transfusion. Results: The study included data on 3779 patients with eligible abortions. The study participants were racially and ethnically diverse and included 870 (23.0%) Black patients, 533 (14.1%) Latinx/Hispanic patients, 1623 (42.9%) White patients, and 327 (8.7%) who identified as multiracial or with other racial or ethnic groups. For most (2626 [69.5%]), it was their first medication abortion. Patients lived in 34 states, and 2785 (73.7%) lived in urban areas. In 2511 (66.4%) abortions, the medications were dispensed in person; in the other 1268 (33.6%), they were mailed to the patient. Follow-up data were obtained for 2825 abortions (74.8%), and multiple imputation was used to account for missing data. Across the sample, 12 abortions (0.54%; 95% CI, 0.18%-0.90%) were followed by major abortion-related adverse events, and 4 patients (0.22%; 95% CI, 0.00%-0.45%) were treated for ectopic pregnancies. Follow-up identified 9 (0.40%; 95% CI, 0.00%-0.84%) patients who had pregnancy durations of greater than 70 days on the date the mifepristone was dispensed that were not identified at screening. The adjusted effectiveness rate was 94.8% (95% CI, 93.6%-95.9%). Effectiveness was similar when medications were dispensed in person (95.4%; 95% CI, 94.1%-96.7%) or mailed (93.3%; 95% CI, 90.7%-95.9%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, screening for medication abortion eligibility by history alone was effective and safe with either in-person dispensing or mailing of medications, resulting in outcomes similar to published rates of models involving ultrasonography or pelvic examination. This approach may facilitate more equitable access to this essential service by increasing the types of clinicians and locations offering abortion care.

Effectiveness of training primary care internal medicine residents in etonogestrel implants and impact on their future practice: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of an etonogestrel implant training program within a primary care Internal Medicine residency training program. STUDY DESIGN: We surveyed graduates of our primary care Internal Medicine residency program in the Bronx, New York who performed implant procedures though the first 32 months after implementation of a monthly faculty-supervised resident implant clinic. We assessed the number of implants placed and removed per graduate, and surveyed graduates' satisfaction with the implant training program, perceived competence with implant procedures, and intent and ability to perform implant procedures and barriers to performing implant procedures postgraduation. RESULTS: Between July 2017 and February 2020, 14 residents placed a total of 34 devices and removed four. All 14 program graduates completed the survey in August 2020. All but one respondent felt this training was valuable and 11 felt competent placing implants without supervision. Although 10 planned to provide implants following graduation, none have been able to, largely because of credentialing and clinic-practice level barriers. CONCLUSIONS: The primary care Internal Medicine program graduates we surveyed (n = 14) valued our etonogestrel implant training program and perceived competence, particularly with implant placement. However, even those who intended to provide etonogestrel implants postgraduation were unable to do so. IMPLICATIONS: Internal Medicine residents trained to place and remove etonogestrel implants are most comfortable with implant placement. However, these physicians may face barriers related to credentialing and ambulatory practice scope when attempting to provide this care in clinical practice.

Mail-order pharmacy dispensing of mifepristone for medication abortion after in-person clinical assessment.

OBJECTIVE(S): To estimate the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of medication abortion with mifepristone dispensed by a mail-order pharmacy after in-person clinical assessment. STUDY DESIGN: This is an interim analysis of an ongoing prospective cohort study conducted at five sites. Clinicians assessed patients in clinic and, if they were eligible for medication abortion and ≤ 63 days' gestation, electronically sent prescriptions for mifepristone 200 mg orally and misoprostol 800 mcg buccally to a mail-order pharmacy, which shipped medications for next-day delivery. Participants completed surveys three and 14 days after enrollment, and we abstracted medical chart data. RESULTS: Between January 2020 and April 2021 we enrolled 240 participants and obtained clinical outcome information for 227 (94.6%); 3 reported not taking either medication. Of those with abortion outcome information (N = 224), 216 (96.4%) completed day-3 and 212 (94.6%) day-14 surveys. Of the 224 that took medications, none reported taking past 70 days' gestation, and complete medication abortion occurred for 217 participants (96.9%, 95% CI 93.7%-98.7%). Most received medications within three days (82.1%, 95% CI 76.5%-86.9%). In the day-3 survey, 95.4% (95% CI 91.7%-97.8%) reported being very (88.4%) or somewhat (6.9%) satisfied with receiving medications by mail. In the day-14 survey, 89.6% (95% CI 84.7%-93.4%) said they would use the mail-order service again if needed. Eleven (4.9%, 95% CI 2.5%-8.6%) experienced adverse events; two were serious (one blood transfusion, one hospitalization), and none were related to mail-order pharmacy dispensing. CONCLUSIONS: Medication abortion with mail-order pharmacy dispensing of mifepristone appears effective, feasible, and acceptable to patients. IMPLICATIONS: The in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone, codified in the drug's Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, should be removed.

Family Physicians' Role in Simplifying Medication Abortion During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Despite first trimester abortion being common and safe, there are numerousrestrictions that lead to barriers to seeking abortion care. The COVID-19 pandemic hasonly exacerbated these barriers, as many state legislators push to limit abortion accesseven further. During this pandemic, family physicians across the country haveincorporated telemedicine into their practices to continue to meet patient needs.Medication abortion can be offered to patients by telemedicine in most states, andmultiple studies have shown that labs, imaging, and physical exam may not beessential in all cases. Family physicians are well-poised to incorporate medicationabortion into their practices using approaches that limit the spread of the coronavirus,ultimately increasing access to abortion in these unprecedented times.

Self-induction of abortion among women in the United States.

Recent media coverage and case reports have highlighted women's attempts to end their pregnancies by self-inducing abortions in the United States. This study explored women's motivations for attempting self-induction of abortion. We surveyed women in clinic waiting rooms in Boston, San Francisco, New York, and a city in Texas to identify women who had attempted self-induction. We conducted 30 in-depth interviews and inductively analyzed the data. Median age at time of self-induction attempt was 19 years. Between 1979 and 2008, the women used a variety of methods, including medications, malta beverage, herbs, physical manipulation and, increasingly, misoprostol. Reasons to self-induce included a desire to avoid abortion clinics, obstacles to accessing clinical services, especially due to young age and financial barriers, and a preference for self-induction. The methods used were generally readily accessible but mostly ineffective and occasionally unsafe. Of the 23 with confirmed pregnancies, three reported a successful abortion not requiring clinical care. Only one reported medical complications in the United States. Most would not self-induce again and recommended clinic-based services. Efforts should be made to inform women about and improve access to clinic-based abortion services, particularly for medical abortion, which may appeal to women who are drawn to self-induction because it is natural, non-invasive and private.

Abortion training at multiple sites: an unexpected curriculum for teaching systems-based practice.

BACKGROUND: In 1999, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education endorsed systems-based practice as one of six general competencies. PURPOSE: The objective is to explore the paradigm of teaching residents systems-based practice during a women's health rotation that included abortion training in multiple settings. METHODS: During a routine women's health rotation, residents from two urban family medicine residency programs received early abortion training at a high-volume abortion clinic and their continuity clinic. Thirty-min semistructured interviews were conducted with all 26 residents who rotated between July 2005 and August 2006. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic codes. RESULTS: Through exposure to different healthcare delivery systems, residents learned about systems-based practice, including understanding the failure of the larger system to meet patients' reproductive healthcare needs, differences between two systems, and potential systems barriers they might face as providers. CONCLUSIONS: Abortion training in multiple settings may serve as a paradigm for teaching systems-based practice during other rotations that include training in multiple sites.

The contraceptive needs and pregnancy desires of women after incarceration: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Prior qualitative research with women incarcerated at Rikers Island Jail asked women to anticipate their future contraceptive needs and pregnancy desires upon re-entering the community. We conduct this follow-up study to understand better the actual contraceptive needs and pregnancy desires experienced by women after incarceration. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews in New York City in 2014 with 10 women incarcerated within the past three years. We coded transcripts using an iterative process, identified emerging themes, and stopped recruitment after reaching thematic saturation. RESULTS: Most participants desired to wait to become pregnant until they had stable housing, income, and employment. A few faced systemic barriers to obtaining contraception, including the process of re-applying for insurance and obtaining medical appointments. For many, incarceration disrupted their use of contraception, insurance status, and relationship with trusted medical providers. Most women lacked trust in the new health professionals they encountered after incarceration. CONCLUSIONS: Incarceration disrupted medical care in general, and contraceptive care in particular. Assistance should be provided to re-apply for insurance, make appointments, and support women to see trusted health professionals. IMPLICATIONS: Incarceration further disenfranchises an already marginalized community through disrupting access to medical care and constrains women's reproductive autonomy long after return to the community.

Barriers to and Enablers of Abortion Provision for Family Physicians Trained in Abortion During Residency.

CONTEXT: Although some family medicine residency programs include routine opt-out training in early abortion, little is known about abortion provision by trainees after residency graduation. A better understanding of the barriers to and enablers of abortion provision by trained family physicians could improve residency training and shape other interventions to increase abortion provision and access. METHODS: Twenty-eight U.S. family physicians who had received abortion training during residency were interviewed in 2017, between two and seven years after residency graduation. The doctors, identified using databases of abortion-trained physicians maintained by residency programs, were recruited by e-mail. In phone interviews, they described their postresidency abortion provision experiences. All interviews were transcribed, coded and analyzed using Dedoose, and a social-ecological framework was employed to guide investigation and analysis. RESULTS: Although many of the physicians were motivated to provide abortion care, only a minority did so. Barriers to and enablers of abortion provision were found on all levels of the social-ecological model-legal, institutional, social and individual-and included state-specific laws and restrictions on federal funding; religious affiliation or policies prohibiting abortion within particular health systems; mentorship, colleagues' support and the stigma of being an abortion provider; and geographic location, time management and individuals' prioritization of abortion provision. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical training alone may not be sufficient for family medicine physicians to overcome the barriers to postresidency abortion provision. To increase abortion provision and access, organizations and advocates should work to strengthen enablers of provision, such as strong mentorship and support networks.