Search

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.

ImportanceBefore 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration required mifepristone to be dispensed in person, limiting access to medication abortion.ObjectiveTo estimate the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of dispensing mifepristone for medication abortion using a mail-order pharmacy.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective cohort study was conducted from January 2020 to May 2022 and included 11 clinics in 7 states (5 abortion clinics and 6 primary care sites, 4 of which were new to abortion provision). Eligible participants were seeking medication abortion at 63 or fewer days' gestation, spoke English or Spanish, were age 15 years or older, and were willing to take misoprostol buccally. After assessing eligibility for medication abortion through an in-person screening, mifepristone and misoprostol were prescribed using a mail-order pharmacy. Patients had standard follow-up care with the clinic. Clinical information was collected from medical records. Consenting participants completed online surveys about their experiences 3 and 14 days after enrolling. A total of 540 participants were enrolled; 10 withdrew or did not take medication. Data were analyzed from August 2022 to December 2023.InterventionMifepristone, 200 mg, and misoprostol, 800 µg, prescribed to a mail-order pharmacy and mailed to participants instead of dispensed in person.Main outcomes and measuresProportion of patients with a complete abortion with medications only, reporting satisfaction with the medication abortion, and reporting timely delivery of medications.ResultsClinical outcome information was obtained and analyzed for 510 abortions (96.2%) among 506 participants (median [IQR] age, 27 [23-31] years; 506 [100%] female; 194 [38.3%] Black, 88 [17.4%] Hispanic, 141 [27.9%] White, and 45 [8.9%] multiracial/other individuals). Of these, 436 participants (85.5%; 95% CI, 82.2%-88.4%) received medications within 3 days. Complete abortion occurred after medication use in 499 cases (97.8%; 95% CI, 96.2%-98.9%). There were 24 adverse events (4.7%) for which care was sought for medication abortion symptoms; 3 patients (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.1%-1.7%) experienced serious adverse events requiring hospitalization (1 with blood transfusion); however, no adverse events were associated with mail-order dispensing. Of 477 participants, 431 (90.4%; 95% CI, 87.3%-92.9%) indicated that they would use mail-order dispensing again for abortion care, and 435 participants (91.2%; 95% CI, 88.3%-93.6%) reported satisfaction with the medication abortion. Findings were similar to those of other published studies of medication abortion with in-person dispensing.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cohort study indicate that mail-order pharmacy dispensing of mifepristone for medication abortion was effective, acceptable to patients, and feasible, with a low prevalence of serious adverse events. This care model should be expanded to improve access to medication abortion services.

Objective(s)To estimate the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of medication abortion with mifepristone dispensed by a mail-order pharmacy after in-person clinical assessment.Study designThis is an interim analysis of an ongoing prospective cohort study conducted at five sites. Clinicians assessed patients in clinic and, if they were eligible for medication abortion and ≤ 63 days' gestation, electronically sent prescriptions for mifepristone 200 mg orally and misoprostol 800 mcg buccally to a mail-order pharmacy, which shipped medications for next-day delivery. Participants completed surveys three and 14 days after enrollment, and we abstracted medical chart data.ResultsBetween January 2020 and April 2021 we enrolled 240 participants and obtained clinical outcome information for 227 (94.6%); 3 reported not taking either medication. Of those with abortion outcome information (N = 224), 216 (96.4%) completed day-3 and 212 (94.6%) day-14 surveys. Of the 224 that took medications, none reported taking past 70 days' gestation, and complete medication abortion occurred for 217 participants (96.9%, 95% CI 93.7%-98.7%). Most received medications within three days (82.1%, 95% CI 76.5%-86.9%). In the day-3 survey, 95.4% (95% CI 91.7%-97.8%) reported being very (88.4%) or somewhat (6.9%) satisfied with receiving medications by mail. In the day-14 survey, 89.6% (95% CI 84.7%-93.4%) said they would use the mail-order service again if needed. Eleven (4.9%, 95% CI 2.5%-8.6%) experienced adverse events; two were serious (one blood transfusion, one hospitalization), and none were related to mail-order pharmacy dispensing.ConclusionsMedication abortion with mail-order pharmacy dispensing of mifepristone appears effective, feasible, and acceptable to patients.ImplicationsThe in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone, codified in the drug's Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, should be removed.

ObjectiveTo understand how the COVID-19 pandemic affected women of reproductive age, specifically their economic conditions, desire for pregnancy, and access to contraceptive services during the pandemic.Study designsA total of 554 women respondents age 18 to 49 and reside in the United States were recruited using social media between May 16, 2020 and June 16, 2020. Logistic regression models assessed predictors of reporting pandemic-related changes in economic conditions, desire for pregnancy, and contraceptive access.ResultsCompared to White/Caucasian respondents, Hispanics/Latinx and Black/African Americans have 4 times the odds of experiencing inability to afford food, transportation, and/or housing (p < 0.01) during the pandemic; Hispanics/Latinx have twice the odds of experiencing food insecurity (p < 0.05). Inability to afford food, transportation, and/or housing was associated with drop in desire to be pregnant (p < 0.01). Despite the 25% of participants who reported a drop in desire for pregnancy, 1 in 6 reported difficulty accessing contraceptives, particularly those who experienced reduced income (p < 0.01).ConclusionsIn our sample, the pandemic unevenly affected people from different socioeconomic groups. Many simultaneously experienced reduced income, difficulties in accessing contraception, and a greater desire to avoid a pregnancy. This combination of factors increases the chance that people will experience unintended pregnancies.ImplicationsThe pandemic caused economic hardship and an increased desire to postpone or prevent pregnancy at the same time that it created new barriers to contraceptive services. This pattern may lead to a potential net effect of an increase in unintended pregnancy, particularly among people who had difficulty affording food, transportation, and/or housing during the pandemic.

Abortion and miscarriage are common, affecting millions of US women each year. By age 45, one in four women in the USA will have had an abortion, and at least as many will have had a miscarriage. Most individuals seeking abortion services do so before 10 weeks gestation when medication abortions are a safe and effective option, using a regimen of oral mifepristone followed by misoprostol tablets. When a pregnancy is non-viable before 13 weeks gestation, it is referred to as an early pregnancy loss or miscarriage and can be managed using the same mifepristone and misoprostol regimen. Given their safety and efficacy, mifepristone and misoprostol can be offered in ambulatory settings without special equipment or on-site emergency services. As more patients find it difficult to access clinical care when faced with an undesired pregnancy or a miscarriage, it is important for general internists and primary care providers to become familiar with how to use medications to manage these common conditions. We summarize the most recent evidence regarding the use of mifepristone with misoprostol for early abortion and miscarriage. We discuss clinical considerations and resources for integrating mifepristone and misoprostol into clinical practice. By learning to prescribe mifepristone and misoprostol, clinicians can expand access to time-sensitive health services for vulnerable populations.

Abortion and miscarriage are common, affecting millions of US women each year. By age 45, one in four women in the USA will have had an abortion, and at least as many will have had a miscarriage. Most individuals seeking abortion services do so before 10 weeks' gestation when medication abortions are a safe and effective option, using a regimen of oral mifepristone followed by misoprostol tablets. When a pregnancy is non-viable before 13 weeks' gestation, it is referred to as an early pregnancy loss or miscarriage and can be managed using the same mifepristone and misoprostol regimen. Given their safety and efficacy, mifepristone and misoprostol can be offered in ambulatory settings without special equipment or on-site emergency services. As more patients find it difficult to access clinical care when faced with an undesired pregnancy or a miscarriage, it is important for general internists and primary care providers to become familiar with how to use medications to manage these common conditions. We summarize the most recent evidence regarding the use of mifepristone with misoprostol for early abortion and miscarriage. We discuss clinical considerations and resources for integrating mifepristone and misoprostol into clinical practice. By learning to prescribe mifepristone and misoprostol, clinicians can expand access to time-sensitive health services for vulnerable populations.

Objectives: To determine the uptake of the Alfred Health Post‐COVID service among people hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) or referred by general practitioners; to describe their characteristics and symptoms at eight weeks and the clinical services they required. Study design: Observational cohort study. Setting: Outpatient post‐COVID‐19 follow‐up service in a tertiary Melbourne hospital. Participants: All people admitted to Alfred Health (inpatients, hospital‐in‐the‐home) with COVID‐19, 19 March 2020 – 28 December 2022; people with persistent symptoms referred by general practitioners in the Alfred Health catchment area during 2022. Intervention: Questionnaire‐based symptom assessment eight weeks after onset of COVID‐19. Dyspnoea, fatigue, depression, anxiety, and post‐traumatic stress disorder were assessed with standardised tools, as were health status and health‐related quality of life; return to work or study, weight loss, and altered cognition and memory were also assessed. Screening was followed by physical assessment and management at the service (specialist general medicine review, physiotherapist, allied health assistant, neuropsychologist) and referral to other specialist medical services as required. Main outcome measures: Proportion of eligible people who used the service for follow‐up at eight weeks; proportions of service users who reported symptoms and return to pre‐COVID‐19 employment or study; clinical services required by service users. Results: Of 6712 people invited for screening, 726 completed questionnaires (11%). At least one persistent symptom was reported by 385 of 642 respondents (60% of respondents, 5.7% of invitees), most frequently memory (371 of 656, 57%) or concentration problems (431 of 656, 66%), dyspnoea (197 of 703, 28%), and extreme fatigue (189 of 673, 28%). Sixty‐seven of 453 respondents had not returned to pre‐COVID‐19 work or study (15%). People were referred to a variety of medical and non‐medical services for management, including specialist medical clinics, allied health, and rehabilitation. Among 71 people who also completed questionnaires at twelve months, the proportions who reported fatigue, anxiety, and memory and concentration changes were similar at both assessments. Conclusions: After acute COVID‐19 that required hospital admission or was followed by persistent symptoms in community care, a small proportion of people (5.7%) reported symptoms that required medical and allied health specialist assessment and management. Our findings may assist planning services for people with long COVID. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

GLO:1C4K/01aug20:tct13111-fig-0002.jpg PHOTO (COLOR): . gl Introduction Case-based conferences are consistently rated as the most educational sessions by postgraduate trainees. The problem representation is a one-sentence case summary that describes the patient's epidemiology and clinical syndrome and the tempo and time course of the illness. As participants suggest diagnoses based on the problem representation, the facilitator can organise the responses into tiers: diagnoses that seem most likely; diagnoses that must be considered because of severity or potential for rapid progression; and diagnoses that are plausible but unlikely. Case-based conferences, where colleagues share patient stories and invite discussions about diagnosis and management, are important learning opportunities throughout one's professional life. [Extracted from the article]