Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31720004›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2019

Implementation of mifepristone medical abortion in Canada: pilot and feasibility testing of a survey to assess facilitators and barriers.

Courtney Devane, Regina M Renner, Sarah Munro, Édith Guilbert, Sheila Dunn, Marie-Soleil Wagner, Wendy V Norman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Courtney Devane1Contraception and Abortion Research Team, Women's Health Research Institute, BC Women's Hospital and Health Center, Vancouver, BC Canada.
Regina M Renner1Contraception and Abortion Research Team, Women's Health Research Institute, BC Women's Hospital and Health Center, Vancouver, BC Canada.
Sarah Munro1Contraception and Abortion Research Team, Women's Health Research Institute, BC Women's Hospital and Health Center, Vancouver, BC Canada.
Édith Guilbert1Contraception and Abortion Research Team, Women's Health Research Institute, BC Women's Hospital and Health Center, Vancouver, BC Canada.
Sheila Dunn1Contraception and Abortion Research Team, Women's Health Research Institute, BC Women's Hospital and Health Center, Vancouver, BC Canada.
Marie-Soleil Wagner1Contraception and Abortion Research Team, Women's Health Research Institute, BC Women's Hospital and Health Center, Vancouver, BC Canada.
Wendy V Norman1Contraception and Abortion Research Team, Women's Health Research Institute, BC Women's Hospital and Health Center, Vancouver, BC Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4340-7882
University of British Columbia · CACentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine · CAInstitut National de Santé Publique du Québec · CAUniversity of London · GBUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDirect primary care provision of first-trimester medical abortion could potentially address inequitable abortion access in Canada. However, when Health Canada approved the combination medication Mifegymiso® (mifepristone 200 mg/misoprostol 800 mcg) for medical abortion in July 2015, we hypothesized that the restrictions to distribution, prescribing, and dispensing would impede the uptake of this evidence-based innovation in primary care. We developed and pilot-tested a survey related to policy and practice facilitators and barriers to assess successful initiation and ongoing clinical provision of medical abortion service by physicians undertaking mifepristone training. Additionally, we explored expert, stakeholder, and physician perceptions of the impact of facilitators and barriers on abortion services throughout Canada.

methodsIn phase 1, we developed a survey using 2 theoretical frameworks: Greenhalgh's conceptual model for the Diffusion of Innovations in health service organizations (which we operationalized) and Godin's framework to assess the impact of professional development on the uptake of new practices operationalized in Légaré's validated questionnaire. We finalized questions in phase 2 using the modified Delphi methodology. The survey was then tested by an expert panel of 25 nationally representative physician participants and 4 clinical content experts. Qualitative analysis of transcripts enriched and validated the content by identifying these potential barriers: physicians dispensing the medication, mandatory training to become a prescriber, burdens for patients, lack of remuneration for mifepristone provision, and services available in my community. To assess the usability and reliability of the online survey, in phase 3, we pilot-tested the survey for feasibility.

resultsWe developed and tested a 61-item Mifepristone Implementation Survey suitable to study the facilitators and barriers to implementation of mifepristone first-trimester medical abortion practice by physicians in Canada.

conclusionsOur team operationalized Greenhalgh's theoretical framework for Diffusion of Innovations in health systems to explore factors influencing the implementation of first-trimester medical abortion provision. This process may be useful for those evaluating other health system innovations. Identification of facilitators and barriers to implementation of mifepristone practice in Canada and knowledge translation has the potential to inform regulatory and health system changes to support and scale up facilitators and mitigate barriers to equitable medical abortion provision.

Indexed as

AbortionCanadaDelphi approachDiffusion of InnovationFamily physicianFamily planningImplementation scienceMifepristoneSurvey

Identifiers

PMID31720004
PMCPMC6839244
OpenAlexW2983729485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.