ArticleContraception2022
Exploring the impact of mifepristone's risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) on the integration of medication abortion into US family medicine primary care clinics✰,✰✰.
Article in Contraception, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Abortion Provision by Family Physicians Before and After Dobbs: Trends Across Career Stages and State Restrictions.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2026Article
- Facilitating Abortion Services in Primary Care Settings After the Loss of Federal Protections.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2026Article
- Factors Affecting Willingness to Provide Medication Abortion Among North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology Members Caring for Adolescents and Young Adults Following the Dobbs Decision.Journal of pediatric and adolescent gynecology · 2024Article
- Primary care and abortion provider perspectives on mail-order medication abortion: a qualitative study.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Information on medication abortion provided by family planning clinics in California.Contraception · 2023Article
- "They Go Hand in Hand": Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Core Values of Family Medicine and Abortion Provision Among Family Physicians Who Do Not Oppose Abortion.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2023Article
- Abortion providers in the United States: expanding beyond obstetrics and gynecology.AJOG global reports · 2023Article
- Telemedicine, Medication Abortion, and Access AfterAmerican journal of public health · 2022Article
- Primary Care Clinicians' Interest In, and Barriers To, Medication Abortion.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesIn 2000, the United States' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved mifepristone for medication abortion. In this article, we explore how the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) criteria for mifepristone specifically impede family physicians' ability to provide medication abortion in primary care settings. STUDY
designWe conducted 56 qualitative interviews with a national sample of family physicians across the US who were not opposed to abortion. We examined how the REMS criteria for mifepristone impact family physicians' ability to provide medication abortion.
resultsOf the 56 interviews conducted, 23 participants (41%) raised the REMS criteria as a barrier to providing medication abortion in primary care. These participants reported the REMS added a layer of bureaucratic complexity that made it difficult for family physicians to navigate, even when trained, to provide abortion care. These family physicians described 2 predominant ways the REMS impede their ability to provide medication abortion: (1) The REMS require substantial involvement of clinic administration, who can be unsupportive; (2) The complexity of navigating the REMS results in physicians and clinic administration in primary care viewing medication abortion as not worth the effort, since it is only a small component of services offered in primary care.
conclusionRemoving the REMS could simplify integration of medication abortion into primary care, which could meet patient preferences, improve access, and reduce abortion stigma. The FDA's revised REMS criteria may ease administrative burden but will likely maintain key barriers to integrating medication abortion into family physicians' practice. IMPLICATIONS: Our study highlights that the REMS criteria are barriers to family physicians' ability to integrate medication abortion into their primary care practices. The FDA's removal of in person dispensing criteria may provide some impetus for trained family physicians to integrate medication abortion into their scope of practice but the revised REMS criteria maintain key barriers to broader adoption.
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.