Training in aspiration abortion care: An observational cohort study of achieving procedural competence.

BACKGROUND: Studies in multiple countries have found that the provision of aspiration abortion care by trained nurses, midwives, and other front-line health care workers is safe and acceptable to women. In the United States, most state abortion laws restrict the provision of abortion to physicians; nurse practitioners, nurse-midwives, and physician assistants, can legally perform medication abortion in only twelve states and aspiration abortion in five. Expansion of abortion care by these providers, consistent with their scopes of practice, could help alleviate the increasing difficulty of accessing abortion care in many states. OBJECTIVES: This study used a competency-based training model to teach advanced practice clinicians to perform vacuum aspiration for the abortion care. Previous research reporting on the training of providers other than physicians primarily focused on numbers of procedures performed, without assessment of skill competency or clinician confidence. DESIGN: In this prospective, observational cohort study, advanced practice clinician trainees were recruited from 23 clinical sites across six partner organizations. Trainees participated in a standardized, competency-based didactic and clinical training program in uterine aspiration for first-trimester abortion. SETTINGS: Trainee clinicians needed to be employed by one of the six partner organizations and have an intention to remain in clinical practice following training. PARTICIPANTS: California-licensed advanced practice clinicians were eligible to participate in the training if they had at least 12 months of clinical experience, including at least three months of medication abortion provision, and certification in Basic Life Support. METHODS: A standardized, competency-based training program consisting of both didactic and clinical training in uterine aspiration for first-trimester abortion was completed by 46 advanced practice clinician participants. Outcomes related to procedural safety and to the learning process were measured between August 2007 and December 2013, and compared to those of resident physician trainees. RESULTS: Essentially identical odds of complications occurring from advanced practice clinician-performed procedures were not significantly different than the odds of complications occurring from resident-performed procedures (OR: 0.99; CI: 0.46-2.02; p > 0.05) after controlling for patient sociodemographic and medical history. The number of training days to foundational competence ranged from six to 10, and the number of procedures to competence for those who completed training ranged from 40 to 56 (median = 42.5). CONCLUSIONS: A standardized, competency-based trainingprogram can prepare advanced practice clinicians to safely provide first-trimester aspiration abortions. Access to safe abortion care can be enhanced by increasing the number of providers from cadres of clinicians other than physicians.

Standardizing the classification of abortion incidents: the Procedural Abortion Incident Reporting and Surveillance (PAIRS) Framework.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate standardized criteria for assessing abortion-related incidents (adverse events, morbidities, near misses) for first-trimester aspiration abortion procedures and to demonstrate the utility of a standardized framework [the Procedural Abortion Incident Reporting & Surveillance (PAIRS) Framework] for estimating serious abortion-related adverse events. STUDY DESIGN: As part of a California-based study of early aspiration abortion provision conducted between 2007 and 2013, we developed and validated a standardized framework for defining and monitoring first-trimester (≤14weeks) aspiration abortion morbidity and adverse events using multiple methods: a literature review, framework criteria testing with empirical data, repeated expert reviews and data-based revisions to the framework. RESULTS: The final framework distinguishes incidents resulting from procedural abortion care (adverse events) from morbidity related to pregnancy, the abortion process and other nonabortion related conditions. It further classifies incidents by diagnosis (confirmatory data, etiology, risk factors), management (treatment type and location), timing (immediate or delayed), seriousness (minor or major) and outcome. Empirical validation of the framework using data from 19,673 women receiving aspiration abortions revealed almost an equal proportion of total adverse events (n=205, 1.04%) and total abortion- or pregnancy-related morbidity (n=194, 0.99%). The majority of adverse events were due to retained products of conception (0.37%), failed attempted abortion (0.15%) and postabortion infection (0.17%). Serious or major adverse events were rare (n=11, 0.06%). CONCLUSIONS: Distinguishing morbidity diagnoses from adverse events using a standardized, empirically tested framework confirms the very low frequency of serious adverse events related to clinic-based abortion care. IMPLICATIONS: The PAIRS Framework provides a useful set of tools to systematically classify and monitor abortion-related incidents for first-trimester aspiration abortion procedures. Standardization will assist healthcare providers, researchers and policymakers to anticipate morbidity and prevent abortion adverse events, improve care metrics and enhance abortion quality.

The Stratified Legitimacy of Abortions.

Roe v. Wade was heralded as an end to unequal access to abortion care in the United States. However, today, despite being common and safe, abortion is performed only selectively in hospitals and private practices. Drawing on 61 interviews with obstetrician-gynecologists in these settings, we examine how they determine which abortions to perform. We find that they distinguish between more and less legitimate abortions, producing a narrative of stratified legitimacy that privileges abortions for intended pregnancies, when the fetus is unhealthy, and when women perform normative gendered sexuality, including distress about the abortion, guilt about failure to contracept, and desire for motherhood. This stratified legitimacy can perpetuate socially-inflected inequality of access and normative gendered sexuality. Additionally, we argue that the practice by physicians of distinguishing among abortions can legitimate legislative practices that regulate and restrict some kinds of abortion, further constraining abortion access.

Abortion Patients' Experience and Perceptions of Waiting Periods: Survey Evidence before Arizona's Two-visit 24-hour Mandatory Waiting Period Law.

BACKGROUND: More than one-half of U.S. states now have laws requiring women to wait at least 24 hours between receiving information about abortion and the actual abortion procedure, with a few requiring longer waits, and one-fourth requiring that women receive this information in person. Although public discussions of waiting periods focus on how they affect women, we know little about abortion patients' perceptions of these requirements. METHODS: We collected data from 379 women seeking abortion care at an abortion facility in Arizona before Arizona's 24-hour waiting period two-visit requirement went into effect. Surveys focused on patients' experiences receiving abortion care before the waiting period and perceptions about how the additional clinic visit would affect them. RESULTS: Most women reported one or more financial or logistical challenges in obtaining abortion care. More than two-thirds reported difficulty paying abortion appointment-related expenses. These expenses prevented or delayed almost one-half from paying other expenses, such as rent, bills, and food, with lower income women more affected. The majority expected that the additional visit would result in additional financial and logistical hardships and delay them in having an abortion, with 90% reporting that the waiting period would lead to at least one hardship. Eight percent reported that the waiting period would have a positive effect on emotional well-being, and more than one-half reported that it would have a negative effect on emotional well-being. CONCLUSION: Only a small minority of women seeking abortion care view a two-visit waiting period law as benefiting them; the overwhelming majority expect a waiting period to have adverse consequences.

Eggs and Abortion: "Women-Protective" Language Used by Opponents in Legislative Debates over Reproductive Health.

In this paper we undertake an examination of the presence of similar "women-protective" discourses in policy debates occurring over two bills on reproductive-related topics considered during the 2013 California legislature session. The first bill (AB154), now signed into law, allows nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants to perform first-trimester aspiration abortions. The second bill (AB926), had it passed, would remove the prohibition on paying women for providing eggs to be used for research purposes. Using frame analysis we find evidence of similar protective arguments by opponents of both bills, although these advocates do not share ideological positions on abortion rights or women's autonomy. In the case of AB154, anti-abortion advocates use language and frames that call for protecting the health of women against the imputed interests of the "abortion industry." In the case of AB926, feminists and pro-choice advocates evoke similar frameworks for the protection of women against the interests of the "medical research industry." Both sides argue for the "protection of women," from opposing positions on the rights and autonomy of women in relationship to reproductive freedom.

Constructing the meaning of ultrasound viewing in abortion care.

As ultrasound scanning becomes increasingly routine in abortion care, scholars and activists have forwarded claims about how viewing the ultrasound image will affect pregnant women seeking abortion, speculating that it will dissuade them from abortion. These accounts, however, fail to appreciate how viewing is a social process. Little research has investigated how ultrasound workers navigate viewing in abortion care. We draw on interviews with twenty-six ultrasound workers in abortion care for their impressions and practices around ultrasound viewing. Respondents reported few experiences of viewing dissuading women from abortion, but did report that it had an emotional effect on patients that they believed was associated with gestational age. These impressions informed their practices, leading many to manage patient viewing based on the patient's gestational age. Other aspects of their accounts, however, undercut the assertion that the meaning of ultrasound images is associated with gestation and show the pervasiveness of cultural ideas associating developing foetal personhood with increasing gestational age. Findings demonstrate the social construction of ultrasound viewing, with implications in the ongoing contestation over abortion rights in the US.

Incidence of emergency department visits and complications after abortion.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a retrospective observational cohort study to estimate the abortion complication rate, including those diagnosed or treated at emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: Using 2009-2010 abortion data among women covered by the fee-for-service California Medicaid program and all subsequent health care for 6 weeks after having an abortion, we analyzed reasons for ED visits and estimated the abortion-related complication rate and the adjusted relative risk. Complications were defined as receiving an abortion-related diagnosis or treatment at any source of care within 6 weeks after an abortion. Major complications were defined as requiring hospital admission, surgery, or blood transfusion. RESULTS: A total of 54,911 abortions among 50,273 fee-for-service Medi-Cal beneficiaries were identified. Among all abortions, 1 of 16 (6.4%, n=3,531) was followed by an ED visit within 6 weeks but only 1 of 115 (0.87%, n=478) resulted in an ED visit for an abortion-related complication. Approximately 1 of 5,491 (0.03%, n=15) involved ambulance transfers to EDs on the day of the abortion. The major complication rate was 0.23% (n=126, 1/436): 0.31% (n=35) for medication abortion, 0.16% (n=57) for first-trimester aspiration abortion, and 0.41% (n=34) for second-trimester or later procedures. The total abortion-related complication rate including all sources of care including EDs and the original abortion facility was 2.1% (n=1,156): 5.2% (n=588) for medication abortion, 1.3% (n=438) for first-trimester aspiration abortion, and 1.5% (n=130) for second-trimester or later procedures. CONCLUSION: Abortion complication rates are comparable to previously published rates even when ED visits are included and there is no loss to follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Beyond political claims: women's interest in and emotional response to viewing their ultrasound image in abortion care.

CONTEXT: In the United States, abortion opponents have supported legislation requiring that abortion patients be offered the opportunity to view their preprocedure ultrasound. Little research has examined women's interest in and emotional response to such viewing. METHODS: Data from 702 women who received abortions at 30 facilities throughout the United States between 2008 and 2010 were analyzed. Mixed-effects multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to determine which characteristics were associated with being offered and choosing to view ultrasounds, and with reporting positive or negative emotional responses to viewing. Grounded theory analytic techniques were used to qualitatively describe women's reports of their emotional responses. RESULTS: Forty-eight percent of participants were offered the opportunity to view their ultrasound, and nulliparous women were more likely than others to receive an offer (odds ratio, 2.3). Sixty-five percent of these women (31% overall) chose to view the image; nulliparous women and those living in a state that regulates viewing were more likely than their counterparts to do so (1.7 and 2.5, respectively). Some 213 women reported emotional responses to viewing; neutral emotions (fine, nothing) were the most commonly reported ones, followed by negative emotions (sad, guilty, upset) and then positive emotions (happy, excited). Women who visited clinics with a policy of offering viewing had increased odds of reporting a negative emotion (2.6). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound viewing appears not to have a singular emotional effect. The presence of state regulation and facility policies matters for women's interest in and responses to viewing.

Development and validation of a reproductive autonomy scale.

No validated measures are currently available to assess women's ability to achieve their reproductive intentions, also referred to as "reproductive autonomy." We developed and validated a multidimensional instrument that can measure reproductive autonomy. We generated a pool of 26 items and included them in a survey that was conducted among 1,892 women at 13 family planning and 6 abortion facilities in the United States. Fourteen items were selected through factor analysis and grouped into 3 subscales to form a Reproductive Autonomy Scale: freedom from coercion; communication; and decision-making. Construct validity was demonstrated by a mixed-effects model in which the freedom from coercion subscale and the communication subscale were inversely associated with unprotected sex in the past three months. This new Reproductive Autonomy Scale offers researchers a reliable instrument with which to assess a woman's power to control matters regarding contraceptive use, pregnancy, and childbearing, and to evaluate interventions to increase women's autonomy domestically and globally.

Out-of-pocket costs and insurance coverage for abortion in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Since 1976, federal Medicaid has excluded abortion care except in a small number of circumstances; 17 states provide this coverage using state Medicaid dollars. Since 2010, federal and state restrictions on insurance coverage for abortion have increased. This paper describes payment for abortion care before new restrictions among a sample of women receiving first and second trimester abortions. METHODS: Data are from the Turnaway Study, a study of women seeking abortion care at 30 facilities across the United States. FINDINGS: Two thirds received financial assistance, with those with pregnancies at later gestations more likely to receive assistance. Seven percent received funding from private insurance, 34% state Medicaid, and 29% other organizations. Median out-of-pocket costs when private insurance or Medicaid paid were $18 and $0. Median out-of-pocket cost for women for whom insurance or Medicaid did not pay was $575. For more than half, out-of-pocket costs were equivalent to more than one-third of monthly personal income; this was closer to two thirds among those receiving later abortions. One quarter who had private insurance had their abortion covered through insurance. Among women possibly eligible for Medicaid based on income and residence, more than one third received Medicaid coverage for the abortion. More than half reported cost as a reason for delay in obtaining an abortion. In a multivariate analysis, living in a state where Medicaid for abortion was available, having Medicaid or private insurance, being at a lower gestational age, and higher income were associated with lower odds of reporting cost as a reason for delay. CONCLUSIONS: Out-of-pocket costs for abortion care are substantial for many women, especially at later gestations. There are significant gaps in public and private insurance coverage for abortion.

Relationship between ultrasound viewing and proceeding to abortion.

OBJECTIVE: Ultrasound scanning is a routine part of preprocedure abortion care, and many health care providers offer patients the opportunity to view their ultrasound images. It has been speculated that ultrasound viewing will dissuade women from having an abortion. We examine whether viewing the image is associated with choosing to continue the pregnancy. METHODS: Data from medical records for 15,575 visits by women seeking abortion care at a large, urban abortion provider in 2011 were analyzed for factors associated with choosing to continue the pregnancy. All patients received a preprocedure ultrasound scan and were offered the opportunity to view the image. RESULTS: Patients opted to view the ultrasound image 42.5% of the time. Nearly all pregnancies (98.8%) were terminated: 98.4% of pregnancies among women who viewed their ultrasound images and 99.0% of pregnancies among the patients who did not. Among women with high decision certainty, viewing was not associated with deciding to continue the pregnancy. Viewing was significantly associated with deciding to continue the pregnancy only among the 7.4% of women who reported medium or low decision certainty about having an abortion (adjusted odds ratio 3.21, 95% confidence interval 1.18-8.73). CONCLUSION: Voluntarily viewing the ultrasound image may contribute to a small proportion of women with medium or low decision certainty deciding to continue the pregnancy; such viewing does not alter decisions of the large majority of women who are certain that abortion is the right decision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Prior family planning experiences of obese women seeking abortion care.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of obesity among women of reproductive age calls for research focused on strategies that ensure obese women receive high-quality reproductive health care. This study adds to this literature on service delivery by exploring obese women's experiences receiving or avoiding family planning care. METHODS: We included 651 women seeking abortion care who completed iPad surveys about their previous family planning experiences. FINDINGS: One quarter were classified as obese, with almost 5% morbidly obese. Only 1% of obese women reported avoiding family planning care. More than 12% of morbidly obese women reported not having their family planning needs met (Pap smears, sexually transmitted infection testing, or ultrasonography). This is compared with only 2% among overweight and obese women and 0% among normal and underweight women. Almost 10% of obese and morbidly obese women reported that at least one of the previous family planning clinics they had visited was not prepared to provide care for heavier women and around 25% of obese women reported at least one item in the clinic (such as blood pressure cuffs and examination gowns) was not adequate for their size. RESULTS: Contrary to expectations, we did not find that obese women avoided family planning care. However, morbidly obese women reported not having all of their family planning needs met when they attended care. Family planning providers should ensure that their facilities have the capacity to meet the family planning needs of obese women and that they have adequate equipment to care for this population of women.

Denial of abortion because of provider gestational age limits in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the factors influencing delay in seeking abortion and the outcomes for women denied abortion care because of gestational age limits at abortion facilities. METHODS: We compared women who presented for abortion care who were under the facilities' gestational age limits and received an abortion (n = 452) with those who were just over the gestational age limits and were denied an abortion (n = 231) at 30 US facilities. We described reasons for delay in seeking services. We examined the determinants of obtaining an abortion elsewhere after being denied one because of facility gestational age limits. We then estimated the national incidence of being denied an abortion because of facility gestational age limits. RESULTS: Adolescents and women who did not recognize their pregnancies early were most likely to delay seeking care. The most common reason for delay was having to raise money for travel and procedure costs. We estimated that each year more than 4000 US women are denied an abortion because of facility gestational limits and must carry unwanted pregnancies to term. CONCLUSIONS: Many state laws restrict abortions based on gestational age, and new laws are lowering limits further. The incidence of being denied abortion will likely increase, disproportionately affecting young and poor women.

Patient viewing of the ultrasound image prior to abortion.

BACKGROUND: Little research has investigated women's interest in and factors associated with viewing their ultrasound image in abortion care. STUDY DESIGN: Using medical records for all abortion care visits in 2011 (n = 15,575) at an urban abortion provider, we determined the proportion of women who chose to view by sociodemographic and pregnancy-related characteristics. We used bivariate and multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression models to examine associations between individual-level factors and the decision to view. RESULTS: A total of 42.6% of women chose to view. Identifying as nonwhite, being under age 25, being at or below the federal poverty level, and having medium or low decision certainty about the abortion were associated with increased odds of viewing. Being age 30 and over, having previously been pregnant and being more than 9 weeks gestation were associated with decreased odds of viewing. CONCLUSIONS: Many women seeking abortion care want to view their ultrasound image when offered the opportunity.

Disparities in abortion rates: a public health approach.

Women of lower socioeconomic status and women of color in the United States have higher rates of abortion than women of higher socioeconomic status and White women. Opponents of abortion use these statistics to argue that abortion providers are exploiting women of color and low socioeconomic status, and thus, regulations are needed to protect women. This argument ignores the underlying causes of the disparities. As efforts to restrict abortion will have no effect on these underlying factors, and instead will only result in more women experiencing later abortions or having an unintended childbirth, they are likely to result in worsening health disparities. We provide a review of the causes of abortion disparities and argue for a multifaceted public health approach to address them.

At what cost? Payment for abortion care by U.S. women.

BACKGROUND: Most U.S. abortion patients are poor or low-income, yet most pay several hundred dollars out of pocket for these services. This study explores how women procure these funds. METHODS: iPad-administered surveys were implemented among 639 women obtaining abortions at six geographically diverse healthcare facilities. Women provided information about insurance coverage, payment for service, acquisition of funds, and ancillary costs incurred. FINDINGS: Only 36% of the sample lacked health insurance, but at least 69% were paying out of pocket for abortion care. Women were twice as likely to pay using Medicaid (16% of abortions) than private health insurance (7%). The most common reason women were not using private insurance was because it did not cover the procedure (46%), or they were unsure if it was covered (29%). Among women who did not use insurance for their abortion, 52% found it difficult to pay for the procedure. One half of patients relied on someone else to help cover costs, most commonly the man involved in the pregnancy. Most women incurred ancillary expenses in the form of transportation (mean, $44), and a minority also reported lost wages (mean, $198), childcare expenses (mean, $57) and other travel-related costs (mean, $140). Substantial minorities also delayed or did not pay bills such as rent (14%), food (16%), or utilities and other bills (30%) to pay for the abortion. CONCLUSIONS: Public and private health insurance plan coverage of abortion care services could ease the financial strain experienced by abortion patients, many of whom are low income.

Multiple determinants of the abortion care experience: from the patient's perspective.

Because of the highly stigmatized nature of abortion care delivery and the restriction of abortion provision in most states, little is known about abortion care quality beyond procedural safety. This study examined which aspects of abortion care contributed to patient experiences. Data from a prospective, observational study of 9087 women aged 16 to 44 years, from 22 clinics across California, who responded to a postprocedure survey, were analyzed using mixed-effects logistic regression. Patient experience scores were very high (mean overall satisfaction = 9.4 [0-10 scale]) for all clinicians trained in abortion provision (physicians, nurse practitioners, nurse-midwives, and physician assistants). Multiple patient factors (pain rating, expectations of care, sociodemographics) and clinic-level factors (timely care, treatment by clinicians and staff) were significantly associated with patient experience. Study findings demonstrated that clinic environment, treatment by clinical staff, and managed pain levels contributed to a patient's experience of abortion care, whereas clinician type was not significantly associated.