The Association Between Abortion Restrictions and Patient-Centered Miscarriage Care: A Cross-Sectional Study of U.S. Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Programs [ID: 1377546]

Aurora M. Phillips, R. Flink-bochacki, Sofia Rachad
{"title":"The Association Between Abortion Restrictions and Patient-Centered Miscarriage Care: A Cross-Sectional Study of U.S. Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Programs [ID: 1377546]","authors":"Aurora M. Phillips, R. Flink-bochacki, Sofia Rachad","doi":"10.1097/01.AOG.0000929876.54020.ad","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION: Miscarriage is common, and treatment modalities overlap with those used for induced abortion. In places where abortion is heavily regulated, clinicians managing miscarriages may cautiously rely on the strictest criteria to differentiate early pregnancy loss from potentially viable pregnancy and may not offer certain treatments commonly associated with abortion. METHODS: From November 2021 to January 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional study of all 296 U.S. obstetrics and gynecology residency programs, surveying each about their institution’s miscarriage practices. We compared miscarriage care by program characteristics, institutional abortion restrictions, and state legislative policies. RESULTS: Of 149 programs who responded (50.3% response rate), 74 (49.7%) reported strict reliance on conservative imaging criteria before offering any intervention for suspected early pregnancy loss, despite patient-centered society recommendations, while the remaining 75 (50.3%) reported incorporation of imaging guidelines with other factors. After controlling for other factors, institutional abortion restrictions were the only independent predictor of strict reliance on imaging guidelines (odds ratio 12.3, 95% CI 3.2–47.9). Mifepristone was used less at programs in states with hostile abortion legislation (32% versus 75%, P<.001) or with institutional abortion restrictions (25% versus 86%, P<.001). Similarly, office-based aspiration was lower in hostile states (48% versus 68%, P=.014) and with institutional abortion restrictions (40% versus 81%, P<.001). CONCLUSION: Academic institutions with restricted access to induced abortion are less likely to holistically incorporate clinical evidence and patient priorities in determining when to intervene for miscarriage and are less likely to offer the full range of treatment options. With abortion bans proliferating nationwide, evidence-based education and patient-centered care for miscarriage may also be imperiled.","PeriodicalId":19405,"journal":{"name":"Obstetrics & Gynecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetrics & Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000929876.54020.ad","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Miscarriage is common, and treatment modalities overlap with those used for induced abortion. In places where abortion is heavily regulated, clinicians managing miscarriages may cautiously rely on the strictest criteria to differentiate early pregnancy loss from potentially viable pregnancy and may not offer certain treatments commonly associated with abortion. METHODS: From November 2021 to January 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional study of all 296 U.S. obstetrics and gynecology residency programs, surveying each about their institution’s miscarriage practices. We compared miscarriage care by program characteristics, institutional abortion restrictions, and state legislative policies. RESULTS: Of 149 programs who responded (50.3% response rate), 74 (49.7%) reported strict reliance on conservative imaging criteria before offering any intervention for suspected early pregnancy loss, despite patient-centered society recommendations, while the remaining 75 (50.3%) reported incorporation of imaging guidelines with other factors. After controlling for other factors, institutional abortion restrictions were the only independent predictor of strict reliance on imaging guidelines (odds ratio 12.3, 95% CI 3.2–47.9). Mifepristone was used less at programs in states with hostile abortion legislation (32% versus 75%, P<.001) or with institutional abortion restrictions (25% versus 86%, P<.001). Similarly, office-based aspiration was lower in hostile states (48% versus 68%, P=.014) and with institutional abortion restrictions (40% versus 81%, P<.001). CONCLUSION: Academic institutions with restricted access to induced abortion are less likely to holistically incorporate clinical evidence and patient priorities in determining when to intervene for miscarriage and are less likely to offer the full range of treatment options. With abortion bans proliferating nationwide, evidence-based education and patient-centered care for miscarriage may also be imperiled.
流产限制与以患者为中心的流产护理的关系:美国妇产科住院医师项目的横断面研究[j]
前言:流产是常见的,治疗方式与那些用于人工流产重叠。在堕胎受到严格管制的地方,处理流产的临床医生可能会谨慎地依赖最严格的标准来区分早期妊娠丢失和潜在的存活妊娠,并且可能不会提供通常与流产相关的某些治疗。方法:从2021年11月到2022年1月,我们对所有296个美国妇产科住院医师项目进行了横断面研究,调查了每个机构的流产实践。我们比较了流产护理的项目特点、机构堕胎限制和州立法政策。结果:在149个有应答的项目中(50.3%应答率),74个(49.7%)报告严格依赖保守的影像学标准,而不考虑以患者为中心的社会建议,而其余75个(50.3%)报告了影像学指南与其他因素的结合。在控制其他因素后,机构流产限制是严格依赖成像指南的唯一独立预测因子(优势比12.3,95% CI 3.2-47.9)。米非司酮在堕胎立法不友好的州(32%对75%,P<.001)或机构堕胎限制(25%对86%,P<.001)的项目中使用较少。同样,在敌对国家,以办公室为基础的妊娠率较低(48%对68%,P= 0.014),在机构堕胎限制中(40%对81%,P< 0.001)。结论:限制人工流产的学术机构在决定何时干预流产时不太可能全面纳入临床证据和患者优先事项,也不太可能提供全方位的治疗选择。随着堕胎禁令在全国范围内的扩散,以证据为基础的教育和以病人为中心的流产护理也可能受到危害。
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