Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33894247›Full record

ArticleContraception2021

Changes to medication abortion clinical practices in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mary Tschann, Elizabeth S Ly, Sara Hilliard, Hannah L H Lange

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 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2020.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2022
    Article
  9. Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2020.Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, D.C. : 2002) · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. [Induced abortion and COVID-19 : What changed with the pandemic in 2020].Revue d'epidemiologie et de sante publique · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Medication abortion: A perfect solution?Health services research · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors.

Mary TschannSociety of Family Planning and Society of Family Planning Research Fund, Denver, CO, United States.
Elizabeth S LySociety of Family Planning and Society of Family Planning Research Fund, Denver, CO, United States.
Sara HilliardSociety of Family Planning and Society of Family Planning Research Fund, Denver, CO, United States.
Hannah L H LangeSociety of Family Planning and Society of Family Planning Research Fund, Denver, CO, United States. Electronic address: Clinical@SocietyFP.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo document medication abortion clinical practice changes adopted by providers in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY

designLongitudinal descriptive study, comprised of three online surveys conducted between April to December, 2020. We recruited sites from email lists of national abortion and family planning organizations.

resultsSeventy-four sites opted to participate. We analyzed 55/74 sites (74%) that provided medication abortion and completed all three surveys. The total number of abortion encounters reported by the sites remained consistent throughout the study period, though medication abortion encounters increased while first-trimester aspiration abortion encounters decreased. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, sites reduced the number of in-person visits associated with medication abortion and confirmation of successful termination. In February 2020, considered prepandemic, 39/55 sites (71%) required 2 or more patient visits for a medication abortion. By April 2020, 19/55 sites (35%) reported reducing the total number of in-person visits associated with a medication abortion. As of October 2020, 37 sites indicated newly adopting a practice of offering medication abortion follow-up with no in-person visits.

conclusionsSites quickly adopted protocols incorporating practices that are well-supported in the literature, including forgoing Rh-testing and pre-abortion ultrasound in some circumstances and relying on patient report of symptoms or home pregnancy tests to confirm successful completion of medication abortion. Importantly, these practices reduce face-to-face interactions and the opportunity for virus transmission. Sustaining these changes even after the public health crisis is over may increase patient access to abortion, and these impacts should be evaluated in future research. IMPLICATIONS STATEMENT: Medication abortion serves a critical function in maintaining access to abortion when there are limitations to in-person clinic visits. Sites throughout the country successfully and quickly adopted protocols that reduced visits associated with the abortion, reducing in-person screenings, relying on telehealth, and implementing remote follow-up.

Indexed as

Abortifacient AgentsAbortion, InducedAftercareCOVID-19FemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansLongitudinal StudiesPandemicsPractice Patterns, Physicians'PregnancyTelemedicineUnited StatesAbortifacient AgentsCOVID-19Medication abortionPractice changeRh-factorTelemedicineUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID33894247
PMCPMC8059330

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.