Search

Telehealth abortion has become critical to addressing surges in demand in states where abortion remains legal but evidence on its effectiveness and safety is limited. California Home Abortion by Telehealth (CHAT) is a prospective study that follows pregnant people who obtained medication abortion via telehealth from three virtual clinics operating in 20 states and Washington, DC between April 2021 and January 2022. Individuals were screened using a standardized no-test protocol, primarily relying on their medical history to assess medical eligibility. We assessed effectiveness, defined as complete abortion after 200 mg mifepristone and 1,600 μg misoprostol (or lower) without additional intervention; safety was measured by the absence of serious adverse events. We estimated rates using multivariable logistic regression and multiple imputation to account for missing data. Among 6,034 abortions, 97.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 97.2-98.1%) were complete without subsequent known intervention or ongoing pregnancy after the initial treatment. Overall, 99.8% (99.6-99.9%) of abortions were not followed by serious adverse events. In total, 0.25% of patients experienced a serious abortion-related adverse event, 0.16% were treated for an ectopic pregnancy and 1.3% abortions were followed by emergency department visits. There were no differences in effectiveness or safety between synchronous and asynchronous models of care. Telehealth medication abortion is effective, safe and comparable to published rates of in-person medication abortion care., (© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have the following interests to declare: MAB, BM, and JRS have been paid as expert scientists in the area of abortion and mental health in legal cases challenging abortion policies. NLS received reimbursement for travel expenses related to pro bono expert testimony. MAB, RWB, DGF, CBP, CHR, JRS, JVD, and UDU were awarded grants to conduct research or reviews on the relationship between abortion and mental health. LBH is a named plaintiff in a case regarding abortion rights (SisterSong v State of Georgia). NLS served on the board of directors of Physicians for Reproductive Health. TMO received a speaker fee from Lundbeck Pharma A/S for a talk on prediction of postpartum depression. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of their employers or other organisations. Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Introduction: The general public and abortion patients in the United States have misinformation about the risks of infertility associated with abortion, which may influence abortion care-seeking., Methods: The Google Ads Abortion Access Study was a national study of people considering abortion and searching online for information. Participants completed baseline and follow-up surveys, providing free text responses to questions about barriers and facilitators to abortion. We conducted an exploratory analysis of the free text responses related to fertility and used thematic analysis to identify concerns raised about links between abortion and future fertility., Results: Of 864 participants who provided free text responses in the follow-up survey, 32 specifically mentioned fertility. Few expressed fear that complications from the abortion procedure would somehow lead to infertility; rather, most discussed complex and overlapping thoughts about how abortion factored into their reproductive life plans. These included age-related concerns, missing out on their "chance" to have a child, fear of being punished by God with infertility for having an abortion, and conflicting emotions if they had previously been told they were subfecund or infertile., Conclusion: Although previous research has focused on misinformation about the link between abortion and infertility, participants in this study rarely mentioned it as a concern. Researchers and practitioners should be attuned to the distinctions people make between infertility occurring as a result of abortion and other fears they might have about not achieving their future reproductive aspirations, ask questions, and provide counseling accordingly., (Copyright © 2023 Jacobs Institute of Women's Health, George Washington University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Assess public awareness of medication abortion in the U.S., Study Design: We conducted a cross-sectional survey in 2021-2022 with a probability-based sample, calculating the prevalence of medication abortion awareness and assessing its associations with participant characteristics using multivariable logistic regression., Results: A total of 45% of adults (7201/16,113) and 49% of eligible 15-17-year-old females (175/358) invited completed the survey. In all, 64% of 6992 participants assigned female at birth, and 57% of 360 participants assigned male reported awareness of medication abortion. Race, age, education, poverty level, religion, sexual identity, abortion history, and attitudes toward abortion legality were associated with differences in awareness., Conclusions: Medication abortion awareness differs by participant groups and is critical for expanding abortion access., Implications: Tailored health information for groups with less awareness of medication abortion may help spread knowledge of the method and how to access it., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of interests: Abigail Aiken’s research is supported by grants from the Society of Family Planning (SFP) and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) awarded to the University of Texas at Austin. She is a council member for the British Society of Abortion Care Providers (BSACP). Ushma Upadhyay’s research is supported by grants from the BaSe Family Fund, the Lisa and Douglas Goldman Fund, the Preston-Werner Foundation, the Isabel Allende Foundation, and the Grove Foundation.

Importance: Many people face barriers to abortion care, including long distances to an abortion facility., Objectives: To investigate the association of distance to the nearest abortion facility with abortion or pregnancy outcome., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted using data from the Google Ads Abortion Access study, a prospective cohort study of individuals considering abortion recruited between August 2017 and May 2018. Individuals from 50 states and Washington, District of Columbia, who were pregnant and considering abortion based on self-report were recruited online using a stratified sampling technique. Participants completed online baseline and 4-week follow-up surveys. Data were analyzed between May and August 2021., Exposures: Driving distance to an abortion facility calculated from participant zip code and grouped into 4 categories (<5 miles, 5-24 miles, 25-49 miles, and ≥50 miles)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Abortion or pregnancy outcome reported at 4-week follow-up, categorized as had an abortion, still seeking an abortion, or planning to continue pregnancy. Other measures included reported experience of 8 distance-related barriers to abortion, such as having to gather money for travel expenses and having to keep the abortion a secret., Results: Among 1485 pregnant individuals considering abortion who completed the baseline survey and provided contact information, 1005 individuals completed follow-up (follow-up rate, 67.7%) and 856 participants were included in the analytic sample (443 individuals ages 25-34 years [51.8%]; 208 Black individuals [24.3%]; 101 Hispanic or Latinx individuals [11.8%], and 468 White individuals [54.8%]). Most participants had at least some college education (474 individuals [55.5%]). Distance to an abortion facility was less than 5 miles for 233 individuals (27.2%), 5 to 24 miles for 373 individuals (43.6%), 25 to 49 miles for 85 individuals (9.9%), and 50 or more miles for 165 individuals (19.3%) (mean [SD] distance = 28.3 [43.8] miles). Most participants reported at least 1 distance-related barrier (763 individuals [89.1%]), with a mean of 3.3 barriers (95% CI, 3.2-3.5 barriers) reported. For 7 of 8 distance-related barriers, an increased percentage of participants living farther from an abortion facility reported the barrier compared with participants living less than 5 miles from a facility; for example, 61.8% (95% CI, 53.5%-69.4%) of individuals living less than 5 miles reported having to gather money for travel expenses, while 81.2% (95% CI, 70.8%-88.5%; P = .002) of those living 25 to 49 miles and 75.8% (95% CI, 69.9%-81.0%; P = .02) of those living 50 or more miles from a facility reported this barrier. At follow-up, participants living 50 or more miles from a facility had higher odds of still being pregnant and seeking abortion (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.07; 95% CI, 1.35-3.17; P = .001) or planning to continue pregnancy (aOR = 1.96; 95% CI, 1.06-3.63; P = .03) compared with participants living within 5 miles., Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that greater distance from an abortion facility was associated with delays in obtaining abortion care and inability to receive abortion care. These findings suggest that innovative approaches to abortion provision may be needed to mitigate outcomes associated with long distances to abortion facilities.

Importance: Screening for medication abortion eligibility typically includes ultrasonography or pelvic examination. To reduce physical contact during the COVID-19 pandemic, many clinicians stopped requiring tests before medication abortion and instead screened patients for pregnancy duration and ectopic pregnancy risk by history alone. However, few US-based studies have been conducted on the outcomes and safety of this novel model of care., Objective: To evaluate the outcomes and safety of a history-based screening, no-test approach to medication abortion care., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients obtaining a medication abortion without preabortion ultrasonography or pelvic examination between February 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, at 14 independent, Planned Parenthood, academic-affiliated, and online-only clinics throughout the US., Exposures: Medications for abortion provided without preabortion ultrasonography or pelvic examination and dispensed to patients in person or by mail., Main Outcomes and Measures: Effectiveness, defined as complete abortion after 200 μg of mifepristone and up to 1600 μg of misoprostol without additional intervention, and major abortion-related adverse events, defined as hospital admission, major surgery, or blood transfusion., Results: The study included data on 3779 patients with eligible abortions. The study participants were racially and ethnically diverse and included 870 (23.0%) Black patients, 533 (14.1%) Latinx/Hispanic patients, 1623 (42.9%) White patients, and 327 (8.7%) who identified as multiracial or with other racial or ethnic groups. For most (2626 [69.5%]), it was their first medication abortion. Patients lived in 34 states, and 2785 (73.7%) lived in urban areas. In 2511 (66.4%) abortions, the medications were dispensed in person; in the other 1268 (33.6%), they were mailed to the patient. Follow-up data were obtained for 2825 abortions (74.8%), and multiple imputation was used to account for missing data. Across the sample, 12 abortions (0.54%; 95% CI, 0.18%-0.90%) were followed by major abortion-related adverse events, and 4 patients (0.22%; 95% CI, 0.00%-0.45%) were treated for ectopic pregnancies. Follow-up identified 9 (0.40%; 95% CI, 0.00%-0.84%) patients who had pregnancy durations of greater than 70 days on the date the mifepristone was dispensed that were not identified at screening. The adjusted effectiveness rate was 94.8% (95% CI, 93.6%-95.9%). Effectiveness was similar when medications were dispensed in person (95.4%; 95% CI, 94.1%-96.7%) or mailed (93.3%; 95% CI, 90.7%-95.9%)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, screening for medication abortion eligibility by history alone was effective and safe with either in-person dispensing or mailing of medications, resulting in outcomes similar to published rates of models involving ultrasonography or pelvic examination. This approach may facilitate more equitable access to this essential service by increasing the types of clinicians and locations offering abortion care.

Objective: The aim of the study was to examine whether miscarriage treatment-related morbidities and adverse events vary across facility types., Methods: A retrospective cohort study compared miscarriage treatment-related morbidities and adverse events across hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), and office-based settings. Data on women who had miscarriage treatment between 2011 and 2014 and were continuously enrolled in their insurance plan for at least 1 year before and at least 6 weeks after treatment were obtained from a large national private insurance claims database. The main outcome was miscarriage treatment-related morbidities and adverse events occurring within 6 weeks of miscarriage treatment. Secondary outcomes were major events and infections., Results: A total of 97,374 miscarriage treatments met inclusion criteria. Most (75%) were provided in hospitals, 10% ASCs, and 15% office-based settings. A total of 9.3% had miscarriage treatment-related events, 1.0% major events, and 1.5% infections. In adjusted analyses, there were fewer events in ASCs (6.5%) than office-based settings (9.4%) and hospitals (9.6%), but no significant difference between office-based settings and hospitals. There were no significant differences in major events between ASCs (0.7%) and office-based settings (0.8%), but more in hospitals (1.1%) than ASCs and office-based settings. There were fewer infections in ASCs (0.9%) than office-based settings (1.2%) and more in hospitals (1.6%) than ASCs and office-based settings. In analyses stratified by miscarriage treatment type, the difference between ASCs and office-based settings was no longer significant for miscarriages treated with procedures., Conclusions: Although there seem to be slightly more events in hospitals than ASCs or office-based settings, findings do not support limiting miscarriage treatment to particular settings.

Purpose: A proposed California law will require student health centers at public universities to provide medication abortion. To understand its potential impact, we sought to describe current travel time, costs, and wait times to access care at the nearest abortion facilities., Methods: We projected total medication abortion use based on campus enrollment figures and age- and state-adjusted abortion rates. We calculated distance and public transit time from campuses to the nearest abortion facility. We contacted existing abortion-providing facilities to determine costs, insurance acceptance, and wait times., Results: We estimate 322 to 519 California public university students seek medication abortions each month. As many as 62% of students at these universities were more than 30 minutes from the closest abortion facility via public transportation. Average cost of medication abortion was $604, and average wait time to the first available appointment was one week., Conclusions: College students face cost, scheduling, and travel barriers to abortion care. Offering medication abortion on campus could reduce these barriers., (Copyright © 2018 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)