Search

Background: Substantial changes in abortion care regulations, available medications and national clinical practice guidelines have occurred since a 2012 national Canadian Abortion Provider Survey (CAPS). We developed and piloted the CAPS 2019 survey instrument to explore changes of the abortion provider workforce, their clinical care as well as experiences with stigma and harassment. Methods: We undertook development and piloting in three phases: (1) development of the preliminary survey sections and questions based on the 2012 survey instrument, (2) content validation and feasibility of including certain content aspects via a modified Delphi Method with panels of clinical and research experts, and (3) pilot testing of the draft survey for face validity and clarity of language; assessing usability of the web-based Research Electronic Data Capture platform including the feasibility of complex skip pattern functionality. We performed content analysis of phase 2 results and used a general inductive approach to identify necessary survey modifications. Results: In phase 1, we generated a survey draft that reflected the changes in Canadian abortion care regulations and guidelines and included questions for clinicians and administrators providing first and second trimester surgical and medical abortion. In phase 2, we held 6 expert panel meetings of 5–8 participants each representing clinicians, administrators and researchers to provide feedback on the initial survey draft. Due to the complexity of certain identified aspects, such as interdisciplinary collaboration and interprovincial care delivery differences, we revised the survey sections through an iterative process of meetings and revisions until we reached consensus on constructs and questions to include versus exclude for not being feasible. In phase 3, we made minor revisions based on pilot testing of the bilingual, web-based survey among additional experts chosen to be widely representative of the study population. Demonstrating its feasibility, we included complex branching and skip pattern logic so each respondent only viewed applicable questions based on their prior responses. Conclusions: We developed and piloted the CAPS 2019 survey instrument suitable to explore characteristics of a complex multidisciplinary workforce, their care and experience with stigma on a national level, and that can be adapted to other countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mifepristone medication abortion was first approved in China and France more than 30 years ago and is now used in more than 60 countries worldwide. It is a highly safe and effective method that has the potential to increase population access to abortion in early pregnancy, closer to home. In both Canada and the United States, the initial regulations for distribution, prescribing, and dispensing of mifepristone were highly restricted. However, in Canada, where mifepristone was made available in 2017, most restrictions on the medication were removed in the first year of its availability. The Canadian regulation of mifepristone as a normal prescription makes access possible in community primary care through a physician or nurse practitioner prescription, which any pharmacist can dispense. In this approach, people decide when and where to take their medication. We explore how policy-maker-engaged research advanced reproductive health policy and facilitated this rapid change in Canada. We discuss the implications of these policy advances for self-management of abortion and demonstrate how in Canada patients "self-manage" components of the abortion process within a supportive health care system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Access to family planning health services in Canada has been historically inadequate and inequitable. A potential solution appeared when Health Canada approved mifepristone, the gold standard for medical abortion, in July 2015. We sought to investigate the factors that influence successful initiation and ongoing provision of medical abortion services among Canadian health professionals and how these factors relate to abortion policies, systems, and service access throughout Canada.Methods: We conducted 1-on-1 semistructured interviews with a national sample of abortion-providing and nonproviding physicians and health system stakeholders in Canadian health care settings. Our data collection, thematic analysis, and interpretation were guided by Diffusion of Innovation theory.Results: We conducted interviews with 90 participants including rural practitioners and those with no previous abortion experience. In the course of our study, Health Canada removed mifepristone restrictions. Our results suggest that Health Canada's initial restrictions discouraged physicians from providing mifepristone and were inconsistent with provincial licensing standards, thereby limiting patient access. Once deregulated, remaining factors were primarily related to local and regional implementation processes. Participants held strong perceptions that mifepristone was the new standard of care for medical abortion in Canada and within the scope of primary care practice.Conclusion: Health Canada's removal of mifepristone restrictions facilitated the implementation of abortion care in the primary care setting. Our results are unique because Canada is the first country to facilitate provision of medical abortion in primary care via evidence-based deregulation of mifepristone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Mifepristone for first-trimester medical termination of pregnancy (MTOP) became available in Quebec in 2018, one year after the rest of Canada. Using the theory of the Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) and the transtheoretical model of change (TTM), we investigated factors influencing the implementation of mifepristone MTOP in Quebec.Material and Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 37 Quebec physicians in early 2018. Deductive thematic analysis guided by the theory of DOI explored facilitators and barriers to physicians' adoption of mifepristone MTOP. We then classified participants into five stages of mifepristone adoption based on the TTM. Follow-up data collection one year later assessed further adoption.Results: At baseline, three physicians provided mifepristone MTOP (Maintenance) and two were about to start (Action). Thirteen physicians at Preparation and Advanced Contemplation stages intended to start while, within the Slow Contemplation, two intended to start and ten were unsure. Seven had no intention to provide mifepristone MTOP (Pre-Contemplation). Major reported barriers were: complexity of local health care organisations, medical policy restrictions, lack of support, and general uncertainty. One year later, ten physicians provided mifepristone MTOP (including three at baseline) and nine still intended to, while seventeen did not intend to start provision. Seven of sixteen participants (44%) who worked in TOP clinics at baseline were still not providing MTOP with mifepristone one year later.Conclusion: Despite ideological support, mifepristone MTOP uptake in Quebec is slow and laborious, mainly due to restrictive medical policies, vested interests in surgical provision and administrative inertia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Prior to 2017, most abortions in Canada were surgical and provided by a small number of physicians, mainly in urban areas. The medical abortion pill mifepristone first became available in Jan 2017. By Nov 2017 the regulations were globally unique; mifepristone was treated as a normal prescription drug. Both physicians and nurse-practitioners (NPs) can prescribe, and any pharmacist can dispense the pill for self-administration by the patient at a convenient time and place. We hypothesized the unique regulation of mifepristone would increase the size and distribution of the abortion workforce, particularly in primary care, and thus reduce rural-urban access disparity. Objective: We investigated trends for abortion rate, method, and workforce. Setting and Dataset: Ontario, including 40% of Canada's residents, linked health administrative data. Study design and Analysis: We defined all abortions from Jan 1, 2012 to Mar 10, 2020, using practitioner visits, hospital, emergency and ambulatory care admissions, and dispensed pharmaceuticals. We used interrupted time series (ITS) analysis to compare temporal trends in abortion rate, method, and workforce composition. Population: All most responsible professionals providing abortion (MRP-A), defining one MRP-A per abortion. Intervention: We compared MRP-A prior to mifepristone (Jan 2012 to Jan 2017), to once it was available to prescribe normally (Nov 7, 2017 - Mar 10, 2020). Outcome measures: Trends and rates for the number and characteristics of MRP-A: age, specialty, rural vs urban, abortion method, service volume and rate of providers per 1000 female residents aged 15-49 years (1Kfem15-49) per health region. Results: Among all 315,447 abortions we identified an MRP-A for 311,742 (98.3%). The abortion rate was stable 2012-2020, approximately 11 per 1Kfem15-49 while the percent as medical abortion increased from 2.2% to 31.4%. The rate of MRP per 1Kfem15-49 tripled. The rate of rural MRP-A increased seven-fold while the rate of rural physicians did not change. Mean age of MRP-As fell 6.9 years. By the end of the study period most MRP-As were GPs (66.5%) with 23.2% OBGyns and 9.1% NPs. Conclusions: When regulatory change supported primary care friendly approaches to medical abortion, it was rapidly implemented in both urban and rural primary care. We observed a tripling of the overall number of abortion providers, including a seven-fold increase in rural areas, while the abortion rate was stable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective This study compared adherence to follow-up and clinical outcomes between standard in-clinic and remote follow-up after methotrexate/misoprostol abortion. Study design This nonrandomized trial recruited women requesting medical abortion at two sexual health clinics in Toronto, Canada. Women received methotrexate 50 mg/m 2 followed 3–7 days later by 800 mcg of misoprostol self-administered vaginally. For Day 15, follow-up participants could choose standard in-clinic follow-up with ultrasound and assessment or remote telephone follow-up with serum β-hCG performed at a community laboratory and symptom checklist. Standard and remote follow-up groups were compared for adherence, defined as completing follow-up within 7 days of the scheduled time, and clinical outcomes. Characteristics associated with adherence were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Results Of 129 women, 86 (67%) chose remote follow-up. Nonadherence rates for remote (28%) and standard (23%) follow-up groups did not differ in univariate (p=.57) or multivariable analysis (odds ratio: 1.09, 95% confidence interval: 0.39–3.01). Rates of emergency/hospital visits were 3% and 9% for remote and standard groups, respectively (p=.22), and complete loss to follow was 6% and 14% in remote and standard groups (p=.18). Nonadherent women were more likely to be undecided about their contraception (65% vs. 28%; p=.002), and this difference persisted in the multivariable analysis. Conclusion Given a choice of remote or in-clinic follow-up after methotrexate/misoprostol abortion, most women chose remote follow-up. Rates of adherence to follow-up, adverse outcomes and complete loss to follow-up were similar for women choosing remote and standard follow-up. Implications statement Since standard and remote follow-up after methotrexate/misoprostol abortion are associated with similar adherence to follow-up and similar safety profiles, women should be offered their choice of follow-up method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Virtual communities of practice (VCoPs) have been used to support innovation and quality in clinical care. The drug mifepristone was introduced in Canada in 2017 for medical abortion. We created a VCoP to support implementation of mifepristone abortion practice across Canada.Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the development and use of the Canadian Abortion Providers Support-Communauté de pratique canadienne sur l'avortement (CAPS-CPCA) VCoP and explore physicians' experience with CAPS-CPCA and their views on its value in supporting implementation.Methods: This was a mixed methods intrinsic case study of Canadian health care providers' use and physicians' perceptions of the CAPS-CPCA VCoP during the first 2 years of a novel practice. We sampled both physicians who joined the CAPS-CPCA VCoP and those who were interested in providing the novel practice but did not join the VCoP. We designed the VCoP features to address known and discovered barriers to implementation of medication abortion in primary care. Our secure web-based platform allowed asynchronous access to information, practice resources, clinical support, discussion forums, and email notices. We collected data from the platform and through surveys of physician members as well as interviews with physician members and nonmembers. We analyzed descriptive statistics for website metrics, physicians' characteristics and practices, and their use of the VCoP. We used qualitative methods to explore the physicians' experiences and perceptions of the VCoP.Results: From January 1, 2017, to June 30, 2019, a total of 430 physicians representing all provinces and territories in Canada joined the VCoP and 222 (51.6%) completed a baseline survey. Of these 222 respondents, 156 (70.3%) were family physicians, 170 (80.2%) were women, and 78 (35.1%) had no prior abortion experience. In a survey conducted 12 months after baseline, 77.9% (120/154) of the respondents stated that they had provided mifepristone abortion and 33.9% (43/127) said the VCoP had been important or very important. Logging in to the site was burdensome for some, but members valued downloadable resources such as patient information sheets, consent forms, and clinical checklists. They found email announcements helpful for keeping up to date with changing regulations. Few asked clinical questions to the VCoP experts, but physicians felt that this feature was important for isolated or rural providers. Information collected through member polls about health system barriers to implementation was used in the project's knowledge translation activities with policy makers to mitigate these barriers.Conclusions: A VCoP developed to address known and discovered barriers to uptake of a novel medication abortion method engaged physicians from across Canada and supported some, including those with no prior abortion experience, to implement this practice.International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028443. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the United States, mifepristone is available for medical abortion (for use with misoprostol) only with Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) restrictions, despite an absence of evidence to support such restrictions. Mifepristone has been available in Canada with a normal prescription since November 2017.Methods: Using population-based administrative data from Ontario, Canada, we examined abortion use, safety, and effectiveness using an interrupted time-series analysis comparing trends in incidence before mifepristone was available (January 2012 through December 2016) with trends after its availability without restrictions (November 7, 2017, through March 15, 2020).Results: A total of 195,183 abortions were performed before mifepristone was available and 84,032 after its availability without restrictions. After the availability of mifepristone with a normal prescription, the abortion rate continued to decline, although more slowly than was expected on the basis of trends before mifepristone had been available (adjusted risk difference in time-series analysis, 1.2 per 1000 female residents between 15 and 49 years of age; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 1.4), whereas the percentage of abortions provided as medical procedures increased from 2.2% to 31.4% (adjusted risk difference, 28.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 28.0 to 29.7). There were no material changes between the period before mifepristone was available and the nonrestricted period in the incidence of severe adverse events (0.03% vs. 0.04%; adjusted risk difference, 0.01 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.06 to 0.03), complications (0.74% vs. 0.69%; adjusted risk difference, 0.06 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.18), or ectopic pregnancy detected after abortion (0.15% vs. 0.22%; adjusted risk difference, -0.03 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.09). There was a small increase in ongoing intrauterine pregnancy continuing to delivery (adjusted risk difference, 0.08 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.10).Conclusions: After mifepristone became available as a normal prescription, the abortion rate remained relatively stable, the proportion of abortions provided by medication increased rapidly, and adverse events and complications remained stable, as compared with the period when mifepristone was unavailable. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Women's Health Research Institute.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on mifepristone, a medication typically used in combination with misoprostol, to bring about an abortion. Topics discussed include information on the contraindications for using mifepristone; usage of ultrasonography to assess gestational age and rule out ectopic pregnancy; and the information on the Interim Federal Health Program.

The article discusses right of Canadian women to have access to safe, effective and preferred method of early abortion based on the internationally-recognized standard of combined mifepristone and misoprostol. In contrast to abortion-related services to women in Europe and the U.S., Canadian women use the cytotoxic drug methotrexate. The World Health Organization (WHO) does not recommend methotrexate because it can cause serious deformities in the infant if the abortion fails.

Objective: To explore the Canadian first-trimester medication abortion (MA) workforce and their clinical care following the introduction of mifepristone in 2017, updated national clinical practice guidelines and government approval of nurse practitioners (NPs) as first-trimester MA providers.Study Design: We conducted a national, self-administered, cross-sectional survey of abortion providers in 2019. Our bilingual (French/English) survey collected information on demographics, abortion number, and clinical care characteristics. The true number of abortion providers is unknown thus we cannot calculate a survey response rate. To maximize identification of possibly eligible respondents, we widely distributed the survey between July and December 2020 through health professional organizations, using a modified Dillman technique. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the workforce and clinical practices.Results: Four-hundred-sixty-five clinicians responded, of whom 388 provided first-trimester MA. Physicians (n = 358) and NPs (n = 30) reported providing 13,429 first-trimester MAs in 2019 which represented 27.7% of all reported abortions in the survey. The majority of first-trimester MA respondents were primary care physicians (n = 245, 63.1%), had less than five years' experience (n = 223, 61.3%) and practiced outside of hospitals (n = 228, 66.5%). Forty-three percent (n = 165) practiced rurally, and 44.0% (n = 136) used telemedicine for some abortion care. Ninety-nine percent (n = 350) used a guideline-recommended mifepristone/misoprostol regimen while 14.5% (n = 51) sometimes used methotrexate. Patients most commonly received mifepristone/misoprostol at community pharmacies (median 100.0%; interquartile range 50.0%-100.0%).Conclusion: Our results suggest that there are many new first-trimester MA providers, an increase in the proportion of MAs since 2012 and a shift to primary care settings. Respondents widely adopted mifepristone.Implications Statement: Our results highlight that, following mifepristone introduction, many new primary care practitioners started providing first-trimester medication abortion throughout Canada, including the first non-physicians. This increased access to abortion particularly in rural and underserved communities. These results could inform future directions in policy, guidelines, and abortion access initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]