No test medical abortion - a review of the evidence on selective use of preabortion testing.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The last decade has seen a cascade of different telemedicine models for medical abortion (MA) being tested and implemented. Among these service delivery models is the 'no-test' MA model, in which care is provided remotely and eligibility for the MA is based on history alone. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the existing evidence for no-test MA. RECENT FINDINGS: The evidence base for no-test MA relies heavily on cohort and noncomparative studies predominantly from high resource settings. Recent findings indicate that no-test MA is safe, effective, and highly acceptable. Diagnoses of ectopic pregnancy and underestimation of gestational age were rare. Identified advantages included shortening time to access MA and mitigating access barriers such as cost, and geographical barriers. Abortion seekers valued omitting the ultrasound citing reasons such as privacy concerns, costs, more flexibility, and control. The impacts of no-test MA on unscheduled postabortion contacts and visits and on contraceptive use were unclear due to limited evidence. SUMMARY: No-test MA can be provided to complement other care pathways including those with some or no in-person care. Further research is needed to allow for widespread adoption of no-test MA and scale-up in a variety of contexts, including low-resource settings.

Potential Effects of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic on Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Transmission: A Modeling Study in 32 US Cities.

BACKGROUND: The degree to which the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic will affect the US human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic is unclear. METHODS: We used the Johns Hopkins Epidemiologic and Economic Model to project HIV infections from 2020 to 2025 in 32 US metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). We sampled a range of effects of the pandemic on sexual transmission (0-50% reduction), viral suppression among people with HIV (0-40% reduction), HIV testing (0-50% reduction), and pre-exposure prophylaxis use (0-30% reduction), and indexed reductions over time to Google Community Mobility Reports. RESULTS: Simulations projected reported diagnoses would drop in 2020 and rebound in 2021 or 2022, regardless of underlying incidence. If sexual transmission normalized by July 2021 and HIV care normalized by January 2022, we projected 1161 (1%) more infections from 2020 to 2025 across all 32 cities than if COVID-19 had not occurred. Among "optimistic" simulations in which sexual transmission was sharply reduced and viral suppression was maintained we projected 8% lower incidence (95% credible interval: 14% lower to no change). Among "pessimistic" simulations where sexual transmission was largely unchanged but viral suppression fell, we projected 11% higher incidence (1-21% higher). MSA-specific projections are available at www.jheem.org?covid. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of COVID-19 on HIV transmission remain uncertain and differ between cities. Reported diagnoses of HIV in 2020-2021 are likely to correlate poorly with underlying incidence. Minimizing disruptions to HIV care is critical to mitigating negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on HIV transmission.

Relevance of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to Adolescent Health Measurement: A Systematic Mapping of the SDG Framework and Global Adolescent Health Indicators.

PURPOSE: To assess the relevance of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework for adolescent health measurement, both in terms of age disaggregation and different health domains captured, and how the adolescent health indicators recommended by the Global Action for Measurement of Adolescent Health (GAMA) can complement the SDG framework. METHODS: We conducted a desk review to systematically map all 248 SDG indicators using the UN metadata repository in three steps: 1) age-related mandates for SDG reporting; 2) linkages between the SDG indicators and priority areas for adolescent health measurement; 3) comparison between the GAMA indicators and the SDG framework. RESULTS: Of the 248 SDG indicators, 35 (14%) targeted an age range overlapping with adolescence (10-19 years) and 33 (13%) called for age disaggregation. Only one indicator (3.7.2 "adolescent birth rate") covered the entire 10-19 age range. Almost half (41%) of the SDG indicators were directly related to adolescent health, but only 33 of those (13% of all SDG indicators) overlapped with the ages 10-19, and 15 (6% of all SDG indicators) explicitly mandated age disaggregation. Among the 47 GAMA indicators, five corresponded to existing SDG indicators, and eight were adolescent-specific age adaptations. Several GAMA indicators shed light on aspects not tracked in the SDG framework, such as obesity, mental health, physical activity, and bullying among 10-19-year-olds. DISCUSSION: Adolescent health cannot be monitored comprehensively with the SDG framework alone. The GAMA indicators complement this framework via age-disaggregated adaptations and by tracking aspects of adolescent health currently absent from the SDGs.