Telemedicine for the provision of medication abortion to pregnant people at up to twelve weeks of pregnancy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Leonardo Cely-Andrade, Karen Cárdenas-Garzón, Luis Carlos Enríquez-Santander, Biani Saavedra-Avendano, Guillermo Antonio Ortiz Avendaño
{"title":"Telemedicine for the provision of medication abortion to pregnant people at up to twelve weeks of pregnancy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis","authors":"Leonardo Cely-Andrade, Karen Cárdenas-Garzón, Luis Carlos Enríquez-Santander, Biani Saavedra-Avendano, Guillermo Antonio Ortiz Avendaño","doi":"10.1186/s12978-024-01864-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Telemedicine represents an important strategy to facilitate access to medication abortion (MAB) procedures, reduces distance barriers and expands coverage to underserved communities. The aim is evaluating the self-managed MAB (provided through telemedicine as the sole intervention or in comparison to in-person care) in pregnant people at up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. A literature search was conducted using electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane (Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews), LILACS, SciELO, and Google Scholar. The search was based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study Design (PICOS) framework, and was not restricted to any years of publication, and studies could be published in English or Spanish. Study screening and selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction were performed by peer reviewers. Risk of bias was evaluated with RoB 2.0 and ROBIS-I. A narrative and descriptive synthesis of the results was conducted. Meta-analyses with random-effects models were performed using Review Manager version 5.4 to calculate pooled risk differences, along with their individual 95% confidence intervals. The rate of evidence certainty was based on GRADE recommendations. 21 articles published between 2011 and 2022 met the inclusion criteria. Among them, 20 were observational studies, and 1 was a randomized clinical trial. Regarding the risk of bias, 5 studies had a serious risk, 15 had a moderate risk, and 1 had an undetermined risk. In terms of the type of intervention, 7 compared telemedicine to standard care. The meta-analysis of effectiveness revealed no statistically significant differences between the two modalities of care (RD = 0.01; 95%CI 0.00, 0.02). Our meta-analyses show that there were no significant differences in the occurrence of adverse events or in patient satisfaction when comparing the two methods of healthcare delivery. Telemedicine is an effective and viable alternative for MAB, similar to standard care. The occurrence of complications was low in both forms of healthcare delivery. Telemedicine services are an opportunity to expand access to safe abortion services. Globally, unsafe abortion causes 47,000 deaths and 5 million sexual and reproductive dysfunctions in young pregnant people due to complications of the procedure. This practice is related to barriers to accessing safe abortion services secondary to health system limitations and inequities in the distribution of resources. Telemedicine has proven to be an efficient care alternative to reduce distancing gaps, decrease waiting time and rationalize the costs derived from the procedure. Consequently, several health systems in the world use this model with differences in treatment schemes, weeks of gestation, pregnancy confirmation methods and measurement of reported outcomes. For this reason, evaluating the effectiveness and safety of self-managed medication abortion (MAB) by telemedicine is a support for decision makers who consider implementing or expanding remote care services. This systematic review integrated studies that evaluated MAB only by Telemedicine or in comparison with standard care on pregnant people with 12 weeks gestation or less. Available studies until January 2023 were chosen. Screening and selection of studies, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed by expert reviewers. Aspects such as the effectiveness, safety, and satisfaction of the procedure, among other outcomes, were reviewed. A narrative and descriptive synthesis was carried out, as well as several meta-analyses of the differences in risks between Telemedicine and in-person care. The meta-analysis of studies comparing telemedicine care with standard services reveals that the type of care provided does not affect the effectiveness and safety of MAB, nor does it affect user satisfaction, follow-up, or medication adherence.","PeriodicalId":20899,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-024-01864-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Telemedicine represents an important strategy to facilitate access to medication abortion (MAB) procedures, reduces distance barriers and expands coverage to underserved communities. The aim is evaluating the self-managed MAB (provided through telemedicine as the sole intervention or in comparison to in-person care) in pregnant people at up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. A literature search was conducted using electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane (Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews), LILACS, SciELO, and Google Scholar. The search was based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study Design (PICOS) framework, and was not restricted to any years of publication, and studies could be published in English or Spanish. Study screening and selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction were performed by peer reviewers. Risk of bias was evaluated with RoB 2.0 and ROBIS-I. A narrative and descriptive synthesis of the results was conducted. Meta-analyses with random-effects models were performed using Review Manager version 5.4 to calculate pooled risk differences, along with their individual 95% confidence intervals. The rate of evidence certainty was based on GRADE recommendations. 21 articles published between 2011 and 2022 met the inclusion criteria. Among them, 20 were observational studies, and 1 was a randomized clinical trial. Regarding the risk of bias, 5 studies had a serious risk, 15 had a moderate risk, and 1 had an undetermined risk. In terms of the type of intervention, 7 compared telemedicine to standard care. The meta-analysis of effectiveness revealed no statistically significant differences between the two modalities of care (RD = 0.01; 95%CI 0.00, 0.02). Our meta-analyses show that there were no significant differences in the occurrence of adverse events or in patient satisfaction when comparing the two methods of healthcare delivery. Telemedicine is an effective and viable alternative for MAB, similar to standard care. The occurrence of complications was low in both forms of healthcare delivery. Telemedicine services are an opportunity to expand access to safe abortion services. Globally, unsafe abortion causes 47,000 deaths and 5 million sexual and reproductive dysfunctions in young pregnant people due to complications of the procedure. This practice is related to barriers to accessing safe abortion services secondary to health system limitations and inequities in the distribution of resources. Telemedicine has proven to be an efficient care alternative to reduce distancing gaps, decrease waiting time and rationalize the costs derived from the procedure. Consequently, several health systems in the world use this model with differences in treatment schemes, weeks of gestation, pregnancy confirmation methods and measurement of reported outcomes. For this reason, evaluating the effectiveness and safety of self-managed medication abortion (MAB) by telemedicine is a support for decision makers who consider implementing or expanding remote care services. This systematic review integrated studies that evaluated MAB only by Telemedicine or in comparison with standard care on pregnant people with 12 weeks gestation or less. Available studies until January 2023 were chosen. Screening and selection of studies, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed by expert reviewers. Aspects such as the effectiveness, safety, and satisfaction of the procedure, among other outcomes, were reviewed. A narrative and descriptive synthesis was carried out, as well as several meta-analyses of the differences in risks between Telemedicine and in-person care. The meta-analysis of studies comparing telemedicine care with standard services reveals that the type of care provided does not affect the effectiveness and safety of MAB, nor does it affect user satisfaction, follow-up, or medication adherence.
为怀孕 12 周以内的孕妇提供药物流产的远程医疗:系统文献综述和荟萃分析
远程医疗是促进药物流产(MAB)手术的重要策略,它减少了距离障碍,并将覆盖范围扩大到了服务不足的社区。我们的目的是对怀孕 12 周以内的孕妇进行自我管理的药物流产进行评估(通过远程医疗作为唯一的干预措施或与面对面护理进行比较)。我们使用电子数据库进行了文献检索:MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane(对照试验中央登记册和系统综述数据库)、LILACS、SciELO 和 Google Scholar。检索基于人群、干预、比较、结果和研究设计(PICOS)框架,不限发表年份,研究可以用英语或西班牙语发表。研究筛选、偏倚风险评估和数据提取均由同行评审人员完成。偏倚风险采用 RoB 2.0 和 ROBIS-I 进行评估。对研究结果进行了叙述性和描述性综合。使用Review Manager 5.4版对随机效应模型进行了元分析,以计算汇总风险差异及其各自的95%置信区间。证据的确定性基于 GRADE 建议。2011 年至 2022 年间发表的 21 篇文章符合纳入标准。其中,20 篇为观察性研究,1 篇为随机临床试验。在偏倚风险方面,5 项研究存在严重偏倚风险,15 项研究存在中度偏倚风险,1 项研究存在不确定偏倚风险。在干预类型方面,7 项研究将远程医疗与标准护理进行了比较。对有效性的荟萃分析表明,两种护理方式在统计学上没有显著差异(RD = 0.01;95%CI 0.00,0.02)。我们的荟萃分析表明,在比较两种医疗服务方式时,不良事件的发生率和患者满意度没有明显差异。远程医疗是一种有效、可行的人流手术替代方法,与标准护理类似。两种医疗服务的并发症发生率都很低。远程医疗服务为扩大安全堕胎服务的可及性提供了机会。在全球范围内,不安全人工流产导致 47 000 人死亡,500 万年轻孕妇因手术并发症而出现性功能和生殖功能障碍。这种做法与卫生系统的局限性和资源分配的不公平造成的获得安全堕胎服务的障碍有关。事实证明,远程医疗是一种高效的护理替代方法,可以减少距离上的差距,缩短等待时间,并使手术费用合理化。因此,世界上多个医疗系统都在使用这种模式,但在治疗方案、妊娠周数、妊娠确认方法和报告结果的衡量方面存在差异。因此,通过远程医疗评估自我管理药物流产(MAB)的有效性和安全性对考虑实施或扩大远程医疗服务的决策者来说是一种支持。本系统性综述整合了仅通过远程医疗评估药物流产的研究,或针对妊娠 12 周或不足 12 周的孕妇与标准护理进行比较的研究。选择了截至 2023 年 1 月的可用研究。研究的筛选、数据提取和偏倚风险评估均由专家评审员完成。对手术的有效性、安全性和满意度等方面的结果进行了审查。研究人员进行了叙述性和描述性综合分析,并对远程医疗与面对面医疗之间的风险差异进行了多项荟萃分析。对比较远程医疗护理和标准服务的研究进行的荟萃分析表明,提供的护理类型不会影响人机对话术的有效性和安全性,也不会影响使用者的满意度、随访或服药依从性。
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
Reproductive Health
Reproductive Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
220
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Reproductive Health focuses on all aspects of human reproduction. The journal includes sections dedicated to adolescent health, female fertility and midwifery and all content is open access. Reproductive health is defined as a state of physical, mental, and social well-being in all matters relating to the reproductive system, at all stages of life. Good reproductive health implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life, the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when, and how often to do so. Men and women should be informed about and have access to safe, effective, affordable, and acceptable methods of family planning of their choice, and the right to appropriate health-care services that enable women to safely go through pregnancy and childbirth.
×
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