ArticleContraception: X2020
Trends in medication abortion and the role of low-volume and nonmetropolitan mifepristone purchasers: 2008-2011 and 2014-2017.
Article in Contraception: X, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Spatial Disparities in Mifepristone Use for Early Miscarriage and Induced Abortion Among Obstetrician-Gynecologists Practicing in Massachusetts.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective was to examine trends in the number of low-volume and nonmetropolitan mifepristone purchasers and their role in the expansion of medication abortion.
methodsWe use deidentified data from Danco Laboratories, the sole distributor of mifepristone during the study period, to examine trends in mifepristone distribution. We focus on customers who purchased < 100 doses a year and a subset of those who purchased < 10 doses for the periods of 2008-2011 and 2014-2017. We use data from the Guttmacher Institute Abortion Provider Census (APC) studies in 2008 and 2017 to examine the extent to which some facilities that purchased mifepristone may be missing from Guttmacher's APC.
resultsBetween 2008 and 2017, the number of medication abortions increased 73%, though the number of mifepristone purchasers only increased 15%. The number of low-volume mifepristone customers, or those who purchased < 100 tablets of mifepristone per year, decreased 8% over the study period, while the number purchasing < 10 tablets per year decreased 14%. However, in recent years, low-volume customers were more likely to have purchased mifepristone in multiple years. In nonmetropolitan areas, the number of sites purchasing mifepristone increased slightly but the amount of mifepristone that was purchased more than doubled between 2008 and 2017.
conclusionsWhile reliance on medication abortion increased substantially between 2008 and 2017, there is no evidence that this was due to an increase in the number of facilities that purchased low volumes of mifepristone. IMPLICATIONS: While their numbers declined, abortion providers purchasing low volumes of mifepristone likely played an important role for the individuals they cared for. Access to abortion could increase if a wider network of health care practitioners, especially those in settings that do not currently provide abortions, was able to offer medication abortion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.