Search

Background: Almost one in four women in Australia experience an unintended pregnancy during their lifetime; of these, approximately 30% currently end in abortion. Although early medical abortion (EMA) up to 9 weeks gestation is becoming more widely available in Australia, it is still not commonly offered in primary care. The aim of this study was to investigate the barriers and facilitators to the provision of EMA in primary care. Methods: A sample of 150 general practitioners (GPs) and 150 registered nurses (RNs) working in Australia responded to a best–worst scaling survey designed to answer the following question: what are the most important facilitators and barriers to the provision of EMA in primary care? Results: GPs believe that the lack of clinical guidelines, the amount of information provision and counselling required, and the fact that women who are not their patients may not return for follow-up are the most important barriers. For RNs, these three barriers, together with the stigma of being known as being involved in the provision of EMA, are the most important barriers. The formation of a community of practice to support the provision of EMA was identified by both professions as the most important facilitator. Conclusions: Having access to a community of practice, enhanced training and reducing stigma will encourage the provision of EMA. Although clinical guidelines are available, they need to be effectively disseminated, implemented and endorsed by peak bodies. Primary care practices should consider using task sharing and developing patient resources to facilitate the provision of information and counselling. Although available, early medical abortion is not commonly offered in general practice. When asked, GPs and RNs reported that lack of clinical guidelines, the need to provide information and counselling, and follow-up issues were important barriers to the provision of early medical abortion, whereas having access to a community of practice was the most important facilitator. Guidelines are available, but require dissemination and implementation. Task sharing and appropriate remuneration will encourage more GPs to offer early medical abortion, so it is seen as an essential service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Australian Contraceptive ChOice pRoject (ACCORd) intervention. Methods. An economic evaluation compared the costs and outcomes of the ACCORd intervention with usual care (UC). Data from the ACCORd trial were used to estimate costs and efficacy in terms of contraceptive uptake and quality of life. Rates of contraceptive failure and pregnancy were sourced from the literature. Using a Markov model, within-trial resultswere extrapolated over 10 years and subjected to univariate sensitivity analyses. Model outputs were expressed as the cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained and cost per unintended pregnancy resulting in birth (UPB) avoided. Results. Over 10 years, compared with UC, initiating contraception through the ACCORd intervention resulted in 0.02 fewer UPB and higher total costs (A$2505 vs A$1179) per woman. The incremental cost-effectiveness of the ACCORd intervention versus UC was A$1172 per QALY gained and A$7385 per UPB averted. If the start-up cost of the ACCORd intervention was removed, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was A$81 per QALY gained and A$511 per UPB averted. The results were most sensitive to the probability of contraceptive failure, the probability of pregnancyrelated healthcare service utilisation or the inclusion of the costs of implementing the ACCORd intervention. Conclusions. From a health system perspective, if implemented appropriately in terms of uptake and reach, and assuming an implicit willingness to pay threshold of A$50 000 the ACCORd intervention is cost-effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]