Medical termination of pregnancy: people's expectations and experiences in the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: Annually, approximately 31,000 people experience a termination of pregnancy (TOP) in the Netherlands. In 2021, about one-third of them chose medical termination of pregnancy (MTOP). We explored experiences with MTOP and to what extent expectations, pain, and counselling in the clinic are associated with satisfaction with MTOP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using an online questionnaire. We included 138 respondents, ≥16 years, who chose MTOP (September 2020-March 2022). RESULTS: The majority of respondents experienced MTOP more positively than expected or as expected (67%). For 24%, the experience was more negative than expected. In the event of another TOP, half of these respondents would hesitate to choose or would not choose MTOP, mainly due to physical side effects. The majority of respondents (73%) would choose MTOP again. Their main motivation was self-determination during treatment. Respondents cited four key elements: pain, intensity of experience during and after treatment, blood loss, and duration. Correspondence between MTOP expectations and experiences was associated with satisfaction with MTOP, while pain and satisfaction with counselling were not. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of respondents were satisfied with MTOP and would choose the treatment again. Non-correspondence between expectations and experiences negatively affected satisfaction with MTOP. This highlights the importance of managing expectations by providing accessible information about the variety in expectations and experiences to patients with a focus on key elements of the experience.

The majority experienced the abortion pill more positively than expected or as expected. Four experience elements are key: pain, intensity during and after treatment, blood loss, duration. Information about these elements is crucial since non-correspondence of expectation and experience negatively affects satisfaction.

Factors affecting willingness to provide medication abortion among North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology members caring for adolescents and young adults following the Dobbs decision.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess willingness to provide medication abortion among North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology (NASPAG) clinicians caring for adolescents and young adults (AYA) following Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey METHODS: Potential participants received an e-mail invitation via the NASPAG listserv. A 43-item questionnaire queried demographics, practice setting, abortion training and practice, willingness to provide medication abortion, potential or real barriers to providing medication abortion, and sentiments of abortion. Descriptive statistics, χ2, and Fisher's exact tests were used. RESULTS: Of the 70 participants, 51% were willing to provide a medication abortion for an adolescent who requested it in their clinical practice. The most common barriers to providing medication abortion were legislative restrictions (47%) and dispensing pills from clinic (33%). Participants' willingness to provide a medication abortion differed by type of practice (p = .001), availability of mifepristone (p = .006), perception of state's abortion policy (p = .001), concern about legislative restrictions (p = .008), experience providing abortion (p = .04), and receipt of medication abortion training (p = .02). Willingness to provide medication abortion also differed based on various sentiments of abortion measured but not on opinion regarding legality of abortion for adolescents (p = .49). CONCLUSIONS: Perception of state's abortion rights and concern about legislative restrictions influenced NASPAG clinicians' willingness to provide medication abortion for adolescents. Interventions to minimize legislative interference with medical care, increase abortion training, and implement medication abortion in pediatric settings may expand AYA medication abortion access.

Virtual Clinic Telehealth Abortion Services in the United States One Year After Dobbs: Landscape Review.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth abortion has taken on a vital role in maintaining abortion access since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision. However, little remains known about the landscape of new telehealth-only virtual clinic abortion providers that have expanded since telehealth abortion first became widely available in the United States in 2021. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) document the landscape of telehealth-only virtual clinic abortion care in the United States, (2) describe changes in the presence of virtual clinic abortion services between September 2022, following the Dobbs decision, and June 2023, and (3) identify structural factors that may perpetuate inequities in access to virtual clinic abortion care. METHODS: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional study by reviewing web search results and abortion directories to identify virtual abortion clinics in September 2022 and June 2023 and described changes in the presence of virtual clinics between these 2 periods. In June 2023, we also described each virtual clinic's policies, including states served, costs, patient age limits, insurance acceptance, financial assistance available, and gestational limits. RESULTS: We documented 11 virtual clinics providing telehealth abortion care in 26 states and Washington DC in September 2022. By June 2023, 20 virtual clinics were providing services in 27 states and Washington DC. Most (n=16) offered care to minors, 8 provided care until 10 weeks of pregnancy, and median costs were US $259. In addition, 2 accepted private insurance and 1 accepted Medicaid, within a limited number of states. Most (n=16) had some form of financial assistance available. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual clinic abortion providers have proliferated since the Dobbs decision. We documented inequities in the availability of telehealth abortion care from virtual clinics, including age restrictions that exclude minors, gestational limits for care, and limited insurance and Medicaid acceptance. Notably, virtual clinic abortion care was not permitted in 11 states where in-person abortion is available.

Adaptations to COVID-19 by US abortion clinics: analysis of Society of Family Planning survey data.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze changes in abortion practices during the early COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal descriptive analysis comprising 3 surveys between February-October 2020. Sites were recruited by the Society of Family Planning via convenience sampling. Selected data included average monthly total and medication abortion volume, analyzed with chi-square and linear regression. RESULTS: Total average volume of abortion services did not change over the study period among participating sites (p=.79). Volume and proportion of medication abortion increased over the study period (p=.02, p<.01). CONCLUSION: The early COVID-19 pandemic marked a shift towards medication abortion. IMPLICATIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, among respondent sites, the proportion of medication abortions increased. These findings are interlaced in a national trend towards medication abortion, predating the Dobbs ruling, and likely accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Comparison of medication abortion outcomes at less than and greater than 6 weeks gestation.

OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes and characteristics of two cohorts of patients: those receiving medication abortion (MAB) at ≤42 days gestation and those at 43-56 days gestation. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare characteristics and outcomes of all 142 patients accessing MAB at ≤42 days versus 200 patients at 43-56 days in 2022. We sought to detect a 7% difference in MAB success with 80% power and an alpha of 0.05. We compared follow-up responses and unscheduled contacts with the healthcare system. RESULTS: Abortion success rates were similar between the ≤42 day and 43-56 day groups (94.3% vs 97%, p=0.226). Those ≤42 days had a higher frequency of unscheduled office visits (13% vs 6%, p=0.01) but no difference in phone calls or emergency room visits. More patients with successful MAB in the ≤42 days group answered that bleeding (11.7% vs 1.9%, p=0.006) and cramping (10.5% vs 2.9%, p=0.035) were not heavier or worse than a period, and that they did not have pregnancy symptoms prior to the abortion (15.8% vs 6.0%, p=0.034). Patients ≤42 days gestation less often had a pre-treatment ultrasound (48% vs 64%, p=0.004). Patients without prior ultrasound more often needed uterine aspiration to complete the abortion (6.8% vs 2%, p=0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing MAB at ≤42 days have similar success rates but more unscheduled office visits, and more ambiguous symptoms when using standardized questions for evaluating abortion success. Clinicians should consider adapting their anticipatory guidance and counseling for this population. IMPLICATIONS: Access to very early abortion is increasingly relevant as legal restrictions on abortion increase. Earlier gestations may have different responses to standard follow-up questions despite a successful MAB and may have more interactions with the healthcare system.

Young people's support for and personal interest in an advance provision model for medication abortion.

PURPOSE: To assess young people's interest in advance provision (AP) of medication abortion- receiving mifepristone and misoprostol from a clinician in advance for their future use. METHODS: From November 2022-August 2023 we administered an electronic survey regarding advance provision to patients assigned female at birth at four Bay Area youth-serving clinics. RESULTS: Among 152 people ages 14-24 years (mean 17.9) surveyed, 73.7% (95% CI, 65.9%-80.5%) supported and 46.1% (95% CI, 65.9%-80.5%) were interested in the AP model. AP interest was higher among people who experienced three or more difficulties trying to access reproductive healthcare [70.6% (95% CI 44.0%, 89.7%)] and who experienced food or housing insecurity [60.3% (95% CI 46.6%, 73.0%)]. Most youth (81.6%) had a safe place to store the pills for later use; this proportion was significantly higher among people ages 18-24 years (88.5%) than teens ages 14-17 years (74.3%, p=.025). The most common perceived advantages of AP included being able to have the abortion earlier in pregnancy (61.8%), privacy (57.9%) and convenience (50.7%). Common disadvantages noted included concern that people might take the pills incorrectly (50.0%) or lose the pills (40.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Young people have considerable interest in AP of medication abortion. Further research is needed to document the AP model's feasibility, clinical outcomes, and effect on access for adolescents.

Telemedicine Follow-up After Medication Management of Early Pregnancy Loss.

Objective: Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility of a new protocol for telemedicine follow-up after medication management of early pregnancy loss. Study Design: The study was designed to assess the feasibility of planned telemedicine follow-up after medication management of early pregnancy loss. We compared these follow-up rates with those after planned in-person follow-up of medication management of early pregnancy loss and planned telemedicine follow-up after medication abortion. We conducted a retrospective cohort study, including patients initiating medication management of early pregnancy loss <13w0d gestation and medication abortion ≤10w0d with a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol between April 1, 2020, and March 28, 2021. As part of a new clinical protocol, patients could opt for telemedicine follow-up one week after treatment and a home urine pregnancy test 4 weeks after treatment. Our primary outcome was completed follow-up as per clinical protocol. We also examined outcomes related to complications across telemedicine and in-person follow-up groups. Results: Of patients reviewed, 181 were eligible for inclusion; 75 had medication management of early pregnancy loss, and 106 had medication abortion. Thirty-six out of 75 patients elected for telemedicine follow-up after early pregnancy loss. Of patients scheduled for telemedicine follow-up, 29/36 (81%, 95% CI: 64-92) with early pregnancy loss and 64/69 (93%, 95% CI: 84-98) undergoing medication abortion completed follow-up as per protocol (p = 0.06). Completed follow-up was also similar among patients undergoing medication management of early pregnancy loss who planned for in-person follow-up (p = 0.135). Complications were rare and did not differ across early pregnancy loss and medication abortion groups. Conclusions: Telemedicine follow-up is a feasible alternative to in-person assessment after medication management of early pregnancy loss.

Pricing of medication abortion in the United States, 2021-2023.

INTRODUCTION: Financial costs remain one of the greatest barriers to abortion, leading to delays in care and preventing some from getting a desired abortion. Medication abortion is available through in-person facilities and telehealth services. However, whether telehealth offers a more affordable option has not been well-documented. METHODS: We used Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH)'s Abortion Facility Database, which includes data on all publicly advertising abortion facilities and is updated annually. We describe facility out-of-pocket prices for medication abortion in 2021, 2022, and 2023, comparing in-person and telehealth provided by brick-and-mortar and virtual clinics, and by whether states allowed Medicaid coverage for abortion. RESULTS: The national median price for medication abortion remained consistent at $568 in 2021 and $563 in 2023. However, medications provided by virtual clinics were notably lower in price than in-person care and this difference widened over time. The median cost of a medication abortion offered in-person increased from $580 in 2021 to $600 by 2023, while the median price of a medication abortion offered by virtual clinics decreased from $239 in 2021 to $150 in 2023. Among virtual clinics, few (7%) accepted Medicaid. Median prices in states that accept Medicaid were generally higher than in states that did not. DISCUSSION: Medication abortion is offered at substantially lower prices by virtual clinics. However, not being able to use Medicaid or other insurance may make telehealth cost-prohibitive for some people, even if prices are lower. Additionally, many states do not allow telehealth for abortion, deepening inequities in healthcare.

Clinical and service delivery outcomes following medication abortion provided with or without pretreatment ultrasound or pelvic examination: An updated comparative analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare medication abortion outcomes among people screened without or with ultrasound or pelvic examination. STUDY DESIGN: We used data collected from March 24, 2020, to September 27, 2021, at five TelAbortion Project sites that provided medication abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol by mail. Using logistic regression weighted on propensity scores, we compared outcomes in participants who had neither ultrasound nor examination before treatment (No-Test group) or had such tests (Test group). We analyzed outcomes separately for participants screened early in the analysis period (before September 15, 2020) or later. Outcomes included procedural abortion completion or ongoing pregnancy, serious adverse events, and unplanned posttreatment abortion-related clinical visits. RESULTS: Among 416 participants in the early period, the No-Test group had a significantly higher risk than the Test group of procedural abortion completion or ongoing pregnancy (5.6% vs 0.9%, risk difference 4.6%, 95% CI 1.5%, 7.7%) and abortion-related clinical visits (13.3% vs 6.3%; risk difference 7.0%; 95% CI 1.1%, 12.8%). Among 364 participants screened later, the risk of procedural abortion completion or ongoing pregnancy did not differ by group, while unplanned abortion-related clinical visits were less common in the No-Test group (9.9% vs 20.5%; risk difference -10.6%; 95% CI -20.1%, -1.1%). The risk of serious adverse events did not differ by group in either period. CONCLUSIONS: When providers first began omitting ultrasound or pelvic examination before medication abortion, the practice was associated with increased risks of failure of complete abortion and posttreatment clinical visits; however, these increased risks resolved over time. IMPLICATIONS: Medication abortion without pretreatment ultrasound or examination is effective and safe. This model should be routinely offered to eligible patients.

Amicus brief of over 300 reproductive health researchers supports mifepristone's safety and effectiveness.

On January 30, 2024, over 300 researchers filed an amicus brief in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a United States (US) Supreme Court case concerning the regulatory status of mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortion. In this Comment we summarize the legal challenge, responses from the FDA and drug manufacturer to these challenges, oral arguments presented before the Court, and the implications of the Court's decision on access to mifepristone in the US. We also summarize the content of the accompanying amicus brief.

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.

Efficacy of medication abortion with concurrent initiation of progestin contraceptives: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate medication abortion (MAB) outcomes for participants receiving intramuscular depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) injections or subdermal etonogestrel implants concurrently with mifepristone compared to those who did not in a real-world setting. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study included MAB patients from one Planned Parenthood health center in St. Paul, MN, between 2017 and 2019. We abstracted electronic health records and compared sociodemographic variables, clinical information, and treatment failure rates (primary outcome) between study groups with logistic regression (generating odds ratios [OR] and 95% confidence intervals [CI]). RESULTS: Among 7296 MAB participants, 224 (3.1%) received DMPA injections and 309 (4.2%) received etonogestrel implants concurrently with mifepristone; 141 (62.9%) and 200 (64.7%) completed follow-up respectively. From a random sample of 1000, 990 comparison participants met inclusion criteria; 704 (71.1%) completed follow-up. Fourteen (9.9%) DMPA participants (aOR 4.26, 95% CI 1.87-9.68, p < 0.001) and 6 (3.0%) etonogestrel implant participants (aOR 1.38, 95% CI 0.48-3.55, p = 0.522) required additional treatment to empty the uterus and/or had an ongoing pregnancy, each contrasted with 15 (2.1%) comparison patients (models adjusted for gestational duration, patient age, parity, and race). CONCLUSION: Although our study is limited by high rates of loss to follow-up, our analysis suggests that concurrent administration of DMPA with mifepristone may decrease MAB efficacy, while etonogestrel implant placement does not appear to alter MAB outcomes. These findings are overall consistent with prior literature and inform post-MAB contraception counseling. IMPLICATIONS: This retrospective cohort study reinforces prior randomized controlled trial findings that concurrent depot medroxyprogesterone acetate injection with mifepristone administration may decrease medication abortion efficacy. Conversely, concurrent etonogestrel contraceptive implant placement with mifepristone administration does not appear to decrease medication abortion efficacy. These findings inform post-abortion contraception counseling.

Effectiveness and safety of medication abortion via telemedicine versus in-person: A cohort of pregnant people in Colombia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of medication abortion (MAB) via telemedicine versus in-person in pregnant people with less than 12 gestational weeks in Colombia. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was conducted with 23,362 pregnant people who requested MAB service from Profamilia (a Colombian non-governmental organization) in 2021-2022. The outcomes were success and safety of MAB. We performed a descriptive and a multivariate statistical analysis using the binary regression model to obtain an adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) to identify factors associated with abortion success. RESULTS: In comparison to in-person care (n = 20,289), individuals in telemedicine (n = 3073) were predominantly from urban areas, belonged to a lower socioeconomic stratum, single and did not identify with any ethnic group. In-person users tended to have higher levels of education and accessed the service through private insurance (p < 0,05). There were no differences in the odd of a successful abortion based on the modality of care (aOR 1.18; 95% CI=0.87-1.59). The results were also the same with sensitivity analysis stratified: pregnant people who were nine weeks gestation or less (aOR 0.86; 95% CI=0.63-1.17) or more (aOR 0.87; 95% CI=0.28-2.65). CONCLUSION: Telemedicine is an effective and safe option for MAB, as in-person care. Telemedicine has the potential to increase abortion access by extending the availability of providers and offering people a new option for obtaining care conveniently and privately, especially for women with disadvantaged socioeconomic and educational background. IMPLICATIONS: This study demonstrates that medication abortion (MAB) administered via telemedicine produces outcomes akin to those of in-person care, providing a compelling rationale for its adoption, particularly in underserved regions. This approach can be replicated in other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Person-centered abortion care scale: Validation for medication abortion in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Medication abortions now make up the majority of abortions in the US, with new service delivery models such as telehealth; however, it is unclear how this may impact patient experiences. The objective of the study is to adapt and validate a person-centered abortion care (PCAC) scale for medication abortions that was developed in a global South context (Kenya) for use in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: This study includes medication abortion patients from a hospital-based clinic who had one of two modes of service delivery: (1) telemedicine with no physical exam or ultrasound; or (2) in-person with clinic-based exams and ultrasounds. We conducted a sequential approach to scale development including: (1) defining constructs and item generation; (2) expert reviews; (3) cognitive interviews (n = 12); (4) survey development and online survey data collection (N = 182, including 45 telemedicine patients and 137 in-person patients); and (5) psychometric analyses. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analyses identified 29-items for the US-PCAC scale with three subscales: (1) Respect and Dignity (10 items), (2) Responsive and Supportive Care (nine items for the full scale, one additional mode-specific item each for in-person and telemedicine), and (3) Communication and Autonomy (10 items for the full scale, one additional item for telemedicine). The US-PCAC had high content, construct, and criterion validity. It also had high reliability, with a standardized alpha for the full 29-item US-PCAC scale of 0.95. The US-PCAC score was associated with overall satisfaction. CONCLUSION: This study found high validity and reliability of a newly-developed person-centered abortion care scale for use in the US. As medication abortion provision expands, this scale can be used in quality improvement efforts. IMPLICATIONS: This study found high validity and reliability of a newly-developed person-centered care scale for use in the United States for in-person and telemedicine medication abortion.

Mifepristone and misoprostol in California pharmacies after modifications to the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy Program.

In January 2023, the Food & Drug Administration modified the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program regulating mifepristone to allow direct dispensation from retail pharmacies. In June 2023, we conducted a random, distributive survey of pharmacies in California using secret shopper methodology to investigate the feasibility of accessing mifepristone. One pharmacy had mifepristone immediately available (<24 hours), and misoprostol availability was limited. Accessibility to misoprostol varied by type of pharmacy (p < 0.01), but not by region. Even in a reproductive freedom state, access to mifepristone and misoprostol from outpatient retail pharmacies remains limited.

Is it an abortion: Classification of pregnancy-ending interventions after 24 weeks in the presence of lethal fetal anomalies.

OBJECTIVES: To determine how obstetrician-gynecologists categorize pregnancy-ending interventions in the setting of lethal fetal anomalies. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study of U.S. obstetrician-gynecologists from May to July 2021. We distributed a cross-sectional online survey via email and social media and completed qualitative telephone interviews with a nested group of participants. We assessed institutional classification as induced abortion versus indicated delivery for six scenarios of ending a pregnancy with lethal anomalies after 24 weeks, comparing classification using McNemar chi-square tests with Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiple comparisons with a false discovery rate of 0.05. We performed the thematic analysis of qualitative data and then performed a mixed-methods analysis. RESULTS: We included 205 respondents; most were female (84.4%), had provided abortion care (80.2%), and were general OB/GYNs (59.3%), with broad representation across pre-Dobbs state and institutional abortion policies. Twenty-one qualitative participants had similar characteristics to the whole sample. All scenarios were classified as induced abortion by the majority of respondents, ranging from 53.2% for 32-week induction for anencephaly, to 82.9% for feticidal injection with 24-week induction for anencephaly. Mixed-methods analysis revealed the relevance of gestational age (later interventions less likely to be considered induced abortion) and procedure method and setting (dilation and evacuation, feticidal injection, and freestanding facility all increasing classification as induced abortion). CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in the classification of pregnancy-ending interventions for lethal fetal anomalies, even among trained obstetrician-gynecologists. Method, timing, and location of ending a nonviable pregnancy influence classification, though the perinatal outcome is unchanged. IMPLICATIONS: The classification of pregnancy-ending interventions for lethal fetal anomalies after 24 weeks as indicated delivery versus induced abortion is reflective of sociopolitical regulatory factors as opposed to medical science. The regulatory requirement for classification negatively impacts access to care, especially in environments where induced abortion is legally restricted.

An assessment of clinical outcomes of medication abortion without pretreatment ultrasonography in Planned Parenthood, United States, 2020-2021.

OBJECTIVES: Routine ultrasound before medication abortion (MAB) may create an impediment to expanding abortion access. This study examines clinical outcomes of MAB without pretreatment ultrasound evaluation at Planned Parenthood health centers in multiple states. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from 23 US-based Planned Parenthood affiliates that provided MAB without pretreatment ultrasound for eligible patients from March 2020 to December 2021. Affiliates aggregated electronic health record data from MABs at ≤77 days gestation (based on self-report of last menstrual period) without a pretreatment ultrasound (N = 18,041). Among MABs with known outcomes (N = 9821), we calculated the incidence rates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for completed abortion, ongoing pregnancy, subsequent procedure, emergency department/hospital visits associated with MAB, ectopic pregnancies, and gestational duration greater than 77 days. RESULTS: Among MABs with known outcomes, 96.3% had a complete abortion (95% CI = 95.9%-96.7%), and 2.0% had an ongoing pregnancy (95% CI = 1.7%-2.3%). Four percent had a subsequent procedure (95% CI = 3.6%-4.4%), and 2.3% had a documented emergency department/hospital visit (95% CI = 2.0%-2.6%). Less than 1% had a confirmed ectopic pregnancy (0.15%, 95% CI = 0.09%-0.25%) and had a gestational duration later identified to be greater than 77 days (0.13%, 95% CI = 0.05%-0.29%). CONCLUSIONS: Our calculated incidence rates of clinical outcomes align with rates from the previous literature on MAB and from the emerging literature on MAB without pretreatment ultrasonography. Findings from this analysis suggest that MAB without pretreatment ultrasound is safe and effective for eligible patients. IMPLICATIONS: This large US study found that medication abortion without pretreatment ultrasonography results in similar clinical outcomes to prepandemic models that include pretreatment ultrasonography. Medication abortion without a pretreatment ultrasound may be adopted by abortion providers seeking to expand options for their patients as access to abortion continues to erode.

Medication abortion for adolescents in the United States: Strengthening the role of pediatric primary care providers.

BACKGROUND: Recent legal changes have led to mounting abortion restrictions in the United States (US), disproportionately impacting adolescents, who already face multifaceted barriers to abortion care. Informed by the framework of reproductive justice, adolescents who become pregnant deserve comprehensive, unbiased, and non-judgmental pregnancy options counseling, inclusive of all choices for pregnancy continuation and termination. Pediatric primary care providers are at the front lines of caring for adolescent patients' reproductive health needs and frequently diagnose pregnancy, provide pregnancy options counseling, and assist patients in accessing abortion care. They are uniquely poised to provide this care given their trusted, ongoing relationships with adolescent patients and their families, and their values of deep respect for adolescents' individuality and autonomy. METHODS: In this commentary, we aim to describe the medical and legal landscape of adolescent abortion access in the US and provide recommendations to support pediatric primary care providers' involvement in abortion care. We focus on medication abortion, as the provision of medication abortion has the potential to encompass a broad group of clinicians, including pediatric primary care providers. RESULTS: We discuss the importance of providing options counseling to adolescents within the reproductive justice framework, improving abortion education for pediatric providers, and expanding access to abortion care by supporting providers at an institutional level if they opt to provide medication abortions. CONCLUSION: In light of the current legal landscape, the role of pediatric primary care providers in ensuring adolescent access to abortion care is ever more critical. Although many pediatric and adolescent providers already provide this important care, we, a team of obstetricians/gynecologists and adolescent medicine physicians, echo prior calls for improved training and institutional support for pediatric providers to counsel about and provide abortion-related care. We hope that highlighting the role of pediatric providers in this sphere will help center the needs of adolescent patients and help them fulfill their family planning goals.

The woman is the active agent: General practitioners and the agentive displacement of abortion in Ireland.

After the legalization of abortion in 2018, Ireland needed clinicians to become abortion providers and make this political win a medical reality. Yet Irish doctors had next-to-no training in abortion care, and barriers ranging from stigma to economic pressures in the healthcare system impacted doctors' desire to volunteer. How did hundreds of Irish doctors make the shift from family doctor to abortion provider? Drawing on ethnographic research conducted between 2017 and 2020, this article explores the process by which Irish general practitioners became abortion providers, attending to the material impact of medical technologies on that journey. Drawing from medical anthropologists who have examined similar themes of agency, pharmaceuticals, and medico-legal frameworks within the topic of assisted dying, I build on Anita Hannig's idea of "agentive displacement" to frame the productive impact of abortion pills on this transition.

Experiences with and unmet needs for medication abortion support: A qualitative study with US abortion support providers.

INTRODUCTION: Quality abortion care must be person-centered. Although academic literature has focused on full-spectrum and abortion doulas supporting instrumentation abortion (also referred to as procedural abortion) clients, clients undergoing medication abortion remain understudied and may have unique needs. We aimed to understand United States (US) abortion support providers' perceptions of medication abortion clients' support needs by exploring which needs they address, which needs remain unmet, and how remote support provision might help address client needs. METHODOLOGY: Between April and October 2018, we conducted 60- to 90-min semi-structured, in-depth interviews by telephone with medication abortion support providers. The interviews focused on their experiences providing support to medication abortion clients in the US. We used a deductive thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: We interviewed 16 abortion support providers affiliated with nine US-based organizations. Six participants provided in-person support to medication abortion clients, five provided remote support, and five provided both remote and in-person support. Both in-person and remote providers described offering support that addressed clients' informational, emotional, physical, spiritual, and logistical needs. Through participant narratives, we identified interwoven benefits and challenges to remote support care provision. Participants highlighted that most medication abortion clients did not have a support provider. DISCUSSION: Participants revealed that abortion support providers, including remote support providers, can be a critical component of high-quality abortion care provision. More work is needed to ensure all abortion clients have access to support services as the abortion landscape in the US continues to evolve.