Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38956609›Full record

ArticleBMC women's health2024

Primary care and abortion provider perspectives on mail-order medication abortion: a qualitative study.

Sarah Raifman, Tanvi Gurazada, Jessica Beaman, M Antonia Biggs, Eleanor Bimla Schwarz, Marji Gold, Daniel Grossman

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC women's health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03913104 (Feasibility and Acceptability of Dispensing Mifepristone Via Mail Order Pharmacy), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

NCT03913104 phase4completednot on this map

Feasibility and Acceptability of Dispensing Mifepristone Via Mail Order Pharmacy

TypeinterventionalSponsorDaniel Grossman, MDRan2020 to 2023Enrolled536ConditionsAbortion Early, Pregnancy RelatedArmsMifepristone
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Sarah RaifmanAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco, 1330 Broadway Suite 1100, Oakland, CA, 94612, USA. Sarah.Raifman@ucsf.edu.
Tanvi GurazadaNell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing at Emory University, 1520 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Jessica BeamanSan Francisco Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, 1001 Potrero Ave, San Francisco, CA, USA.
M Antonia BiggsAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco, 1330 Broadway Suite 1100, Oakland, CA, 94612, USA.
Eleanor Bimla SchwarzSan Francisco Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, 1001 Potrero Ave, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Marji GoldMontefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 3544 Jerome Ave, Bronx, NY, 10467, USA.
Daniel GrossmanAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco, 1330 Broadway Suite 1100, Oakland, CA, 94612, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis qualitative study aims to assess perspectives of clinicians and clinic staff on mail-order pharmacy dispensing for medication abortion.

methodsParticipants included clinicians and staff involved in implementing a mail-order dispensing model for medication abortion at eleven clinics in seven states as part of a prospective cohort study, which began in January 2020 (before the FDA removed the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone). From June 2021 to July 2022, we invited participants at the participating clinics, including six primary care and five abortion clinics, to complete a semi-structured video interview about their experiences. We then conducted qualitative thematic analysis of interview data, summarizing themes related to perceived benefits and concerns about the mail-order model, perceived patient interest, and potential barriers to larger-scale implementation.

resultsWe conducted 24 interviews in total with clinicians (13 physicians and one nurse practitioner) and clinic staff (n = 10). Participants highlighted perceived benefits of the mail-order model, including its potential to expand abortion services into primary care, increase patient autonomy and privacy, and to normalize abortion services. They also highlighted key logistical, clinical, and feasibility concerns about the mail-order model, and specific challenges related to integrating abortion into primary care.

conclusionClinicians and clinic staff working in primary care and abortion clinics were optimistic that mail-order dispensing of medication abortion can improve the ability of some providers to provide abortion and enable more patients to access services. The feasibility of mail-order pharmacy dispensing of medication abortion following the Supreme Court Dobbs decision is to be determined.

trial registrationRegistry: Clinicaltrials.gov. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03913104. Date of registration: first submitted on April 3, 2019 and first posted on April 12, 2019.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedAttitude of Health PersonnelPostal ServicePrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchAbortifacient AgentsAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPregnancyProspective StudiesUnited StatesAbortifacient AgentsMail-order pharmacyMedication abortionPrimary careQualitative

Identifiers

PMID38956609
PMCPMC11221167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.