Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
BMC Womens Health ; 24(1): 382, 2024 Jul 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38956609

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
Aborto Inducido , Actitud del Personal de Salud , Servicios Postales , Atención Primaria de Salud , Investigación Cualitativa , Humanos , Aborto Inducido/métodos , Aborto Inducido/psicología , Femenino , Embarazo , Estudios Prospectivos , Adulto , Masculino , Estados Unidos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Abortivos/uso terapéutico , Abortivos/administración & dosificación
2.
Womens Health Issues ; 33(3): 258-265, 2023.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36822914

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
Envío de Mensajes de Texto , Embarazo , Femenino , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Adolescente , Adulto Joven , Adulto , Proyectos Piloto , Estudios de Factibilidad , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Atención Prenatal
3.
Womens Health Issues ; 32(6): 571-577, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35918240

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Until December 2021, the United States Food and Drug Administration impeded abortion access by restricting pharmacists from dispensing mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortion. This study aimed to explore pharmacists' perspectives on dispensing mifepristone. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with pharmacists before and after participating in a pilot project where mifepristone was dispensed from their pharmacies. We thematically coded all interview transcripts, then summarized emergent themes related to pharmacists' support, comfort, experiences, and concerns around dispensing mifepristone. RESULTS: Between May 2018 and July 2020, we interviewed 29 pharmacists (22 at baseline and 15 at follow-up, with 8 completing both interviews) from 5 pharmacies. At both baseline and follow-up, interviewees strongly supported pharmacists dispensing mifepristone, feeling it would improve quality of care by providing more convenient medication abortion access and streamlined service delivery and take advantage of pharmacists' expertise and availability. All pharmacists interviewed at follow-up reported dispensing mifepristone except two who were willing but did not have the opportunity. Pharmacists experienced few challenges dispensing mifepristone. Their main concern was perceived discomfort that other pharmacists and pharmacy staff may experience, particularly in conservative areas or small pharmacies where pharmacists' refusal to dispense mifepristone could impede abortion access. CONCLUSIONS: Most pharmacists supported dispensing mifepristone and were comfortable doing so after education on mifepristone and medication abortion. They dispensed mifepristone without difficulty, in a similar process as dispensing other medications. With the recent removal of U.S. Food and Drug Administration restrictions prohibiting it, our findings support the feasibility of pharmacists dispensing mifepristone.


Asunto(s)
Aborto Inducido , Farmacias , Embarazo , Femenino , Estados Unidos , Humanos , Farmacéuticos , Mifepristona/uso terapéutico , Proyectos Piloto
4.
Obstet Gynecol ; 137(4): 613-622, 2021 04 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33706339

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To estimate effectiveness and acceptability of medication abortion with mifepristone dispensed by pharmacists. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study at eight clinical sites and pharmacies in California and Washington State from July 2018 to March 2020. Pharmacists at participating pharmacies underwent a 1-hour training on medication abortion. We approached patients who had already been evaluated, counseled, and consented for medication abortion per standard of care. Patients interested in study participation gave consent, and the clinician electronically sent a prescription to the pharmacy for mifepristone 200 mg orally, followed 24-48 hours later by misoprostol 800 micrograms buccally. Participants were sent web-based surveys about their experience and outcomes on days 2 and 14 after enrollment and had routine follow-up with study sites. We extracted demographic and clinical data, including abortion outcome and adverse events, from medical records. We performed multivariable logistic regression to assess the association of pharmacy experience and other covariates with satisfaction. RESULTS: We enrolled 266 participants and obtained clinical outcome information for 262 (98.5%), of whom two reported not taking either medication. Of the 260 participants with abortion outcome information, 252 (96.9%) and 237 (91.2%) completed day 2 and 14 surveys, respectively. Complete medication abortion (primary outcome) occurred for 243 participants (93.5%, 95% CI 89.7-96.1%). Four participants (1.5%, 95% CI 0.4-3.9%) had an adverse event, none of which was serious or related to pharmacist dispensing. In the day 2 survey, 91.3% (95% CI 87.1-94.4%) of participants reported satisfaction with the pharmacy experience. In the day 14 survey, 84.4% (95% CI 79.1-88.8%) reported satisfaction with the medication abortion experience. Those reporting being very satisfied with the pharmacy experience had higher odds of reporting overall satisfaction with medication abortion (adjusted odds ratio 2.96, 95% CI 1.38-6.32). CONCLUSION: Pharmacist dispensing of mifepristone for medication abortion is effective and acceptable to patients, with a low prevalence of adverse events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03320057.


Asunto(s)
Abortivos no Esteroideos , Aborto Inducido , Misoprostol , Pautas de la Práctica Farmacéutica/estadística & datos numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , California , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Servicios Farmacéuticos , Embarazo , Estudios Prospectivos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Telemedicina , Washingtón , Adulto Joven
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA