A prospective, comparative study of clinical outcomes following clinic-based versus self-use of medical abortion.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-03-09 DOI:10.1136/bmjsrh-2022-201722
Nathalie Kapp, Bunsoth Mao, Jamie Menzel, Elisabeth Eckersberger, Vonthanak Saphonn, Tung Rathavy, Erin Pearson
{"title":"A prospective, comparative study of clinical outcomes following clinic-based versus self-use of medical abortion.","authors":"Nathalie Kapp,&nbsp;Bunsoth Mao,&nbsp;Jamie Menzel,&nbsp;Elisabeth Eckersberger,&nbsp;Vonthanak Saphonn,&nbsp;Tung Rathavy,&nbsp;Erin Pearson","doi":"10.1136/bmjsrh-2022-201722","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To determine whether clinical outcomes differ among women accessing a combined medical abortion regimen from a health clinic when compared with those accessing it from a pharmacy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a multicentre, prospective, comparative, non-inferiority study of participants aged ≥15 years seeking medical abortion from five clinics and five adjacent pharmacy clusters in three provinces of Cambodia. Participants were recruited in-person at the point of purchase (clinic or pharmacy). Follow-up for self-reported pill use, acceptability, and clinical outcomes occurred by telephone at days 10 and 30 after mifepristone administration.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over 10 months, we enrolled 2083 women with 1847 providing outcome data: 937 from clinics and 910 from pharmacies. Most were early in their pregnancy (mean gestational age of 6.3 and 6.1 weeks, respectively) and almost all took the pills correctly (98% and 96%,). Additional treatment needed to complete the abortion was non-inferior for the pharmacy group (9.3%) compared with the clinic group (12.7%). More from the clinic group received additional care from a provider, such as antibiotics or diagnostics tests, than those from the pharmacy group (11.5% and 3.2%,), and one ectopic pregnancy (pharmacy group) was successfully treated. Most said they felt prepared for what happened after taking the pills (90.9% and 81.3%, respectively, p=0.273).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Self-use of a combined medical abortion product resulted in comparable clinical outcomes as use following a clinical visit, consistent with existing literature on its safety and efficacy. Registration and availability of medical abortion as an over-the-counter product would likely increase women's access to safe abortion.</p>","PeriodicalId":9219,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ff/24/bmjsrh-2022-201722.PMC10579469.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2022-201722","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: To determine whether clinical outcomes differ among women accessing a combined medical abortion regimen from a health clinic when compared with those accessing it from a pharmacy.

Methods: We conducted a multicentre, prospective, comparative, non-inferiority study of participants aged ≥15 years seeking medical abortion from five clinics and five adjacent pharmacy clusters in three provinces of Cambodia. Participants were recruited in-person at the point of purchase (clinic or pharmacy). Follow-up for self-reported pill use, acceptability, and clinical outcomes occurred by telephone at days 10 and 30 after mifepristone administration.

Results: Over 10 months, we enrolled 2083 women with 1847 providing outcome data: 937 from clinics and 910 from pharmacies. Most were early in their pregnancy (mean gestational age of 6.3 and 6.1 weeks, respectively) and almost all took the pills correctly (98% and 96%,). Additional treatment needed to complete the abortion was non-inferior for the pharmacy group (9.3%) compared with the clinic group (12.7%). More from the clinic group received additional care from a provider, such as antibiotics or diagnostics tests, than those from the pharmacy group (11.5% and 3.2%,), and one ectopic pregnancy (pharmacy group) was successfully treated. Most said they felt prepared for what happened after taking the pills (90.9% and 81.3%, respectively, p=0.273).

Conclusions: Self-use of a combined medical abortion product resulted in comparable clinical outcomes as use following a clinical visit, consistent with existing literature on its safety and efficacy. Registration and availability of medical abortion as an over-the-counter product would likely increase women's access to safe abortion.

Abstract Image

一项前瞻性的、比较性的研究,研究基于临床和自行使用药物流产后的临床结果。
背景:确定从健康诊所获得联合药物流产方案的女性与从药房获得联合药物堕胎方案的女性相比,临床结果是否不同。方法:我们对来自柬埔寨三个省的五家诊所和五个相邻药房集群的≥15岁寻求药物流产的参与者进行了一项多中心、前瞻性、比较性、非劣效性研究。参与者在购买点(诊所或药房)亲自招募。米非司酮给药后第10天和第30天通过电话对自我报告的药物使用、可接受性和临床结果进行随访。结果:在10个多月的时间里,我们注册了2083名 1847名女性提供了结果数据:937名来自诊所,910名来自药店。大多数人在怀孕早期(平均胎龄分别为6.3周和6.1周),几乎所有人都正确服药(98%和96%)。与诊所组(12.7%)相比,药房组(9.3%)完成流产所需的额外治疗并不差。与药房组(11.5%和3.2%)相比,诊所组接受了更多提供者的额外护理,如抗生素或诊断测试,其中一例异位妊娠(药房组)得到了成功治疗。大多数人表示,他们对服用药物后发生的事情做好了准备(分别为90.9%和81.3%,p=0.273)。结论:自行使用联合药物流产产品的临床结果与临床就诊后使用的结果相当,与现有关于其安全性和有效性的文献一致。注册和提供药物流产作为非处方产品可能会增加妇女获得安全堕胎的机会。
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.
×
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