L Ralph, C Baba, K Ehrenreich, N Morris, MA Biggs, M Cervantes, T Kromenaker, G Moayedi, J Perritt, N Kapp, E Raymond, K White, K Blanchard, D Grossman
{"title":"ELIGIBILITY FOR MEDICATION ABORTION WITH ASYNCHRONOUS SCREENING VS. IN-PERSON CARE","authors":"L Ralph, C Baba, K Ehrenreich, N Morris, MA Biggs, M Cervantes, T Kromenaker, G Moayedi, J Perritt, N Kapp, E Raymond, K White, K Blanchard, D Grossman","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Asynchronous, no-test screening for medication abortion has recently expanded rapidly. However, there is minimal evidence on how asynchronous clinician assessment of medication abortion eligibility using patient-reported health history and symptoms compares with eligibility determined through synchronous, in-person care.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We recruited patients seeking in-person medication abortion at five facilities in three US states from July to December 2024. Before their appointment, participants completed a survey on medication abortion eligibility criteria; their responses were blinded and reviewed asynchronously by an onsite clinician who assessed eligibility. Participants then proceeded with routine care, and we abstracted clinical encounter data. We examine concordance between clinician asynchronous review of patient self-reported eligibility and in-person clinical encounter.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 260 approached, 172 enrolled and 146 met the criteria to have clinicians review survey responses. Overall, 112 (77%) were eligible for medication abortion on clinician review of survey responses; reasons for ineligibility were gestational duration (n=17), ectopic concern (n=15), and another contraindication (n=4). During the clinical encounter, 90% (n=132) were eligible for medication abortion; reasons for ineligibility were negative pregnancy test/miscarriage (n=8), gestational duration (n=5), ectopic concern (n=1) and another contraindication (n=1). Concordance on eligibility between clinician review of patient-reported survey responses and clinical encounter was 114/146 (78%). Six cases were eligible on clinician review but deemed ineligible during clinical encounter (3 gestational duration; 3 not pregnant). Twenty-six were ineligible on clinician review but deemed eligible on clinical encounter.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Results suggest current asynchronous, no-test screening for medication abortion is conservative, and results in more people screening out of no-test care vs. being given medications when medication abortion is contraindicated.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10762,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":"151 ","pages":"Article 111084"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contraception","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782425002756","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives
Asynchronous, no-test screening for medication abortion has recently expanded rapidly. However, there is minimal evidence on how asynchronous clinician assessment of medication abortion eligibility using patient-reported health history and symptoms compares with eligibility determined through synchronous, in-person care.
Methods
We recruited patients seeking in-person medication abortion at five facilities in three US states from July to December 2024. Before their appointment, participants completed a survey on medication abortion eligibility criteria; their responses were blinded and reviewed asynchronously by an onsite clinician who assessed eligibility. Participants then proceeded with routine care, and we abstracted clinical encounter data. We examine concordance between clinician asynchronous review of patient self-reported eligibility and in-person clinical encounter.
Results
Of 260 approached, 172 enrolled and 146 met the criteria to have clinicians review survey responses. Overall, 112 (77%) were eligible for medication abortion on clinician review of survey responses; reasons for ineligibility were gestational duration (n=17), ectopic concern (n=15), and another contraindication (n=4). During the clinical encounter, 90% (n=132) were eligible for medication abortion; reasons for ineligibility were negative pregnancy test/miscarriage (n=8), gestational duration (n=5), ectopic concern (n=1) and another contraindication (n=1). Concordance on eligibility between clinician review of patient-reported survey responses and clinical encounter was 114/146 (78%). Six cases were eligible on clinician review but deemed ineligible during clinical encounter (3 gestational duration; 3 not pregnant). Twenty-six were ineligible on clinician review but deemed eligible on clinical encounter.
Conclusions
Results suggest current asynchronous, no-test screening for medication abortion is conservative, and results in more people screening out of no-test care vs. being given medications when medication abortion is contraindicated.
期刊介绍:
Contraception has an open access mirror journal Contraception: X, sharing the same aims and scope, editorial team, submission system and rigorous peer review.
The journal Contraception wishes to advance reproductive health through the rapid publication of the best and most interesting new scholarship regarding contraception and related fields such as abortion. The journal welcomes manuscripts from investigators working in the laboratory, clinical and social sciences, as well as public health and health professions education.