Patient experiences of undergoing abortion with and without an ultrasound scan in Britain.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES
Rebecca Blaylock, Patricia A Lohr, Lesley Hoggart, Pam Lowe
{"title":"Patient experiences of undergoing abortion with and without an ultrasound scan in Britain.","authors":"Rebecca Blaylock, Patricia A Lohr, Lesley Hoggart, Pam Lowe","doi":"10.1136/bmjsrh-2023-202116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Routine ultrasound scanning to determine gestational age and pregnancy location has long been part of pre-abortion assessment in Britain, despite not being legally required or recommended in national clinical guidelines. To support implementation of fully telemedical abortion care (implemented in Britain in April 2020), the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) issued clinical guidance for an 'as-indicated' approach to pre-abortion ultrasound, removing the need for a clinic visit. We aimed to understand patient experiences of ultrasound in abortion care by conducting a qualitative study with individuals who had abortions with and without an ultrasound scan.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between November 2021 and July 2022, we recruited patients who had a medical abortion at home without a pre-procedure ultrasound at 69 days' gestation or less at British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), and also had at least one other abortion with an ultrasound from any provider in Britain. We conducted interviews using a semi-structured interview guide to explore our participants' experiences and conducted reflexive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We recruited 24 participants and included 19 interviews in our analysis. We developed three themes from our data. These were 'Ultrasound scans and their relationship with autonomy and decision-making', 'Intrusive and out of place: the ultrasound as an inappropriate technology' and 'Towards preference-centred, quality care'.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Further research and user-testing of strategies to improve the scan experience should be undertaken. Patient testimonies on the negative impact of ultrasound scans in abortion care should reassure providers that omitting them according to patient preference is a positive step towards providing patient-centred care.</p>","PeriodicalId":9219,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2023-202116","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Routine ultrasound scanning to determine gestational age and pregnancy location has long been part of pre-abortion assessment in Britain, despite not being legally required or recommended in national clinical guidelines. To support implementation of fully telemedical abortion care (implemented in Britain in April 2020), the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) issued clinical guidance for an 'as-indicated' approach to pre-abortion ultrasound, removing the need for a clinic visit. We aimed to understand patient experiences of ultrasound in abortion care by conducting a qualitative study with individuals who had abortions with and without an ultrasound scan.

Methods: Between November 2021 and July 2022, we recruited patients who had a medical abortion at home without a pre-procedure ultrasound at 69 days' gestation or less at British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), and also had at least one other abortion with an ultrasound from any provider in Britain. We conducted interviews using a semi-structured interview guide to explore our participants' experiences and conducted reflexive thematic analysis.

Results: We recruited 24 participants and included 19 interviews in our analysis. We developed three themes from our data. These were 'Ultrasound scans and their relationship with autonomy and decision-making', 'Intrusive and out of place: the ultrasound as an inappropriate technology' and 'Towards preference-centred, quality care'.

Conclusions: Further research and user-testing of strategies to improve the scan experience should be undertaken. Patient testimonies on the negative impact of ultrasound scans in abortion care should reassure providers that omitting them according to patient preference is a positive step towards providing patient-centred care.

在英国,接受和未接受超声波扫描的人工流产患者的经历。
背景:在英国,为确定孕龄和妊娠位置而进行的常规超声波扫描长期以来一直是人工流产前评估的一部分,尽管国家临床指南并未在法律上做出要求或建议。为了支持完全远程医疗人工流产护理的实施(2020 年 4 月在英国实施),英国皇家妇产科医师学会(RCOG)发布了人工流产前超声检查 "有指征 "方法的临床指南,从而消除了门诊就诊的必要性。我们的目的是通过对接受过或未接受过超声波扫描的人工流产患者进行定性研究,了解患者在人工流产护理中对超声波检查的体验:方法:2021 年 11 月至 2022 年 7 月期间,我们招募了在英国妊娠咨询服务机构(BPAS)进行过妊娠 69 天或以下在家药物流产但未进行术前超声检查的患者,以及在英国任何医疗机构进行过至少一次超声检查的流产患者。我们使用半结构化访谈指南进行了访谈,以探讨参与者的经历,并进行了反思性主题分析:我们招募了 24 名参与者,并将 19 个访谈纳入分析。我们从数据中提出了三个主题。这三个主题分别是 "超声波扫描及其与自主权和决策的关系"、"侵入性和格格不入:超声波是一种不恰当的技术 "和 "实现以偏好为中心的优质护理":结论:应对改善扫描体验的策略进行进一步研究和用户测试。患者关于超声波扫描在流产护理中的负面影响的证词应让医疗服务提供者放心,根据患者的偏好省略超声波扫描是提供以患者为中心的护理的积极步骤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Medicine-Reproductive Medicine
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
6.10%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health is a multiprofessional journal that promotes sexual and reproductive health and wellbeing, and best contraceptive practice, worldwide. It publishes research, debate and comment to inform policy and practice, and recognises the importance of professional-patient partnership.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信