Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33844980›Full record

ArticleContraception2021

The future of abortion is now: Mifepristone by mail and in-clinic abortion access in the United States.

Alice Mark, Angel M Foster, Jamila Perritt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contraception, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Alice MarkNational Abortion Federation, Washington, DC 20005, USA. Electronic address: amark@prochoice.org.
Angel M FosterUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: angel.foster@uOttawa.ca.
Jamila PerrittPhysicians for Reproductive Health, USA. Electronic address: jperritt@prh.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health care delivery in all aspects of medicine, including abortion care. For 6 months, the mifepristone Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) was temporarily blocked, allowing for the remote provision of medication abortion. Remote medication abortion may become a dominant model of care in the future, either through the formal health system or through self-sourced, self-managed abortion. Clinics already face pressure from falling abortion rates and excessive regulation and with a transition to remote abortion, may not be able to sustain services. Although remote medication abortion improves access for many, those who need or want in-clinic care such as people later in pregnancy, people for whom abortion at home is not safe or feasible, or people who are not eligible for medication abortion, will need comprehensive support to access safe and appropriate care. To understand how we may adapt to remote abortion without leaving people behind, we can look outside of the U.S. to become familiar with emerging and alternative models of abortion care.

Indexed as

Postal ServiceAbortifacient Agents, SteroidalAbortion, InducedAmbulatory Care FacilitiesCOVID-19FemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMifepristoneRisk Evaluation and MitigationSARS-CoV-2TelemedicineUnited StatesAbortifacient Agents, SteroidalMifepristoneAbortionFood and Drug Administration (FDA)MifepristoneMisoprostolRisk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS)Self-managed abortion

Identifiers

PMID33844980
PMCPMC9748603

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.