Counselling before first trimester abortion and acceptability of the procedure: results from a Slovenian cross-sectional study

S. Vodopivec, E. Bokal, B. Pinter
{"title":"Counselling before first trimester abortion and acceptability of the procedure: results from a Slovenian cross-sectional study","authors":"S. Vodopivec, E. Bokal, B. Pinter","doi":"10.1080/13625187.2019.1670346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives: In Slovenia, first-trimester abortion is performed at the woman’s request, either surgically under general anaesthesia or medically with mifepristone and misoprostol, in a public hospital. Our study aimed to evaluate pre-abortion counselling and to reveal differences in acceptability and satisfaction with the two abortion methods. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out at Ljubljana University Medical Centre between January and June 2015. Women requesting termination of a pregnancy up to 10 weeks’ gestation voluntarily completed an anonymous questionnaire after the procedure and were divided into a surgical and a medical abortion group. Results: Of the 266 women who were invited to take part, 229 accepted; 16.6% chose a surgical abortion, 83.4% a medical abortion. The most frequent reason cited for requesting an abortion was economic/housing problems. Most women who chose a surgical abortion did so because it was faster, whereas most women who chose a medical abortion did so on the advice of a primary care gynaecologist. Women choosing a surgical abortion had more previous pregnancies and presented with a higher gestational age pregnancy. The choice of method was not related to the woman’s age. There were no differences in acceptability of the two procedures. Pain during the procedure was, however, more severe in the medical abortion group (p = .026), along with bleeding, nausea and chills; there were no differences in severity of vomiting, diarrhoea, dizziness or headache between the groups. Women in the surgical abortion group reported higher satisfaction with the method (p < .001). The study revealed a low frequency of pre-abortion contraceptive counselling. Conclusion: The most common reason given for choosing a surgical abortion was the speed of the procedure; for a medical abortion, it was on the advice of a primary care gynaecologist. Satisfaction was higher with the surgical abortion method. There were no differences in general acceptability of the methods.","PeriodicalId":22423,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care","volume":"64 1","pages":"487 - 493"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2019.1670346","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Objectives: In Slovenia, first-trimester abortion is performed at the woman’s request, either surgically under general anaesthesia or medically with mifepristone and misoprostol, in a public hospital. Our study aimed to evaluate pre-abortion counselling and to reveal differences in acceptability and satisfaction with the two abortion methods. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out at Ljubljana University Medical Centre between January and June 2015. Women requesting termination of a pregnancy up to 10 weeks’ gestation voluntarily completed an anonymous questionnaire after the procedure and were divided into a surgical and a medical abortion group. Results: Of the 266 women who were invited to take part, 229 accepted; 16.6% chose a surgical abortion, 83.4% a medical abortion. The most frequent reason cited for requesting an abortion was economic/housing problems. Most women who chose a surgical abortion did so because it was faster, whereas most women who chose a medical abortion did so on the advice of a primary care gynaecologist. Women choosing a surgical abortion had more previous pregnancies and presented with a higher gestational age pregnancy. The choice of method was not related to the woman’s age. There were no differences in acceptability of the two procedures. Pain during the procedure was, however, more severe in the medical abortion group (p = .026), along with bleeding, nausea and chills; there were no differences in severity of vomiting, diarrhoea, dizziness or headache between the groups. Women in the surgical abortion group reported higher satisfaction with the method (p < .001). The study revealed a low frequency of pre-abortion contraceptive counselling. Conclusion: The most common reason given for choosing a surgical abortion was the speed of the procedure; for a medical abortion, it was on the advice of a primary care gynaecologist. Satisfaction was higher with the surgical abortion method. There were no differences in general acceptability of the methods.
妊娠早期堕胎前的咨询和程序的可接受性:来自斯洛文尼亚横断面研究的结果
摘要目的:在斯洛文尼亚,在公立医院,在妇女的要求下进行妊娠早期流产,无论是在全身麻醉下进行手术,还是使用米非司酮和米索前列醇进行药物治疗。我们的研究旨在评估堕胎前咨询,并揭示两种堕胎方法的可接受性和满意度的差异。方法:2015年1 - 6月在卢布尔雅那大学医学中心进行横断面研究。要求终止妊娠不超过10周的妇女在手术后自愿填写了一份匿名问卷,并被分为手术流产组和药物流产组。结果:在被邀请参加的266名女性中,229人接受了邀请;16.6%的人选择手术流产,83.4%的人选择药物流产。要求堕胎的最常见原因是经济/住房问题。选择手术流产的大多数妇女是因为手术更快,而选择药物流产的大多数妇女是根据初级保健妇科医生的建议进行的。选择手术流产的妇女有更多的妊娠史,并表现出较高的胎龄。方法的选择与女性的年龄无关。两种程序的可接受性无差异。然而,在手术过程中,药物流产组的疼痛更严重(p = 0.026),并伴有出血、恶心和寒战;两组患者在呕吐、腹泻、头晕或头痛的严重程度上没有差异。手术流产组妇女对该方法的满意度较高(p < 0.001)。研究显示,堕胎前避孕咨询的频率很低。结论:选择手术流产最常见的原因是手术速度快;对于药物流产,是在初级保健妇科医生的建议下进行的。手术流产方式满意度较高。对这些方法的普遍接受程度没有差异。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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