英国妊娠咨询服务机构为妊娠 10 周以内的药物流产提供可待因的选择性与普遍性:横断面评估。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES
Neda Taghinejadi, Hannah McCulloch, Michał Krassowski, Amelia McInnes-Dean, Katherine C Whitehouse, Patricia A Lohr
{"title":"英国妊娠咨询服务机构为妊娠 10 周以内的药物流产提供可待因的选择性与普遍性:横断面评估。","authors":"Neda Taghinejadi, Hannah McCulloch, Michał Krassowski, Amelia McInnes-Dean, Katherine C Whitehouse, Patricia A Lohr","doi":"10.1136/bmjsrh-2023-201893","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess patient experiences of pain management during medical abortion up to 10 weeks' gestation with opt-in versus universal codeine provision.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We invited patients who underwent medical abortion up to 10 weeks of gestation to participate in an online, anonymous, English-language survey from November 2021 to March 2022. We performed ordinal regression analyses to compare satisfaction with pain management (5-point Likert scale) and maximum abortion pain score (11-point numerical rating scale) in the opt-in versus universal codeine provision groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 11 906 patients invited to participate, 1625 (13.6%) completed the survey. Participants reported a mean maximum pain score of 6.8±2.2. A total of 1149 participants (70.7%) reported using codeine for pain management during their abortion. Participants in the opt-in codeine provision group were significantly more likely to be satisfied with their pain management than those in the universal group (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.96, p<0.01). Maximum abortion pain scores were lower on average among the opt-in codeine provision group (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96, p=0.02); however, this association was not statistically significant in the model adjusted for covariates (aOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.03, p=0.09).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest that patients have a better experience with pain management during medical abortion when able to opt-in to codeine provision following counselling versus receiving this medication routinely.</p>","PeriodicalId":9219,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Opt-in versus universal codeine provision for medical abortion up to 10 weeks of gestation at British Pregnancy Advisory Service: a cross-sectional evaluation.\",\"authors\":\"Neda Taghinejadi, Hannah McCulloch, Michał Krassowski, Amelia McInnes-Dean, Katherine C Whitehouse, Patricia A Lohr\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjsrh-2023-201893\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess patient experiences of pain management during medical abortion up to 10 weeks' gestation with opt-in versus universal codeine provision.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We invited patients who underwent medical abortion up to 10 weeks of gestation to participate in an online, anonymous, English-language survey from November 2021 to March 2022. We performed ordinal regression analyses to compare satisfaction with pain management (5-point Likert scale) and maximum abortion pain score (11-point numerical rating scale) in the opt-in versus universal codeine provision groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 11 906 patients invited to participate, 1625 (13.6%) completed the survey. Participants reported a mean maximum pain score of 6.8±2.2. A total of 1149 participants (70.7%) reported using codeine for pain management during their abortion. Participants in the opt-in codeine provision group were significantly more likely to be satisfied with their pain management than those in the universal group (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.96, p<0.01). Maximum abortion pain scores were lower on average among the opt-in codeine provision group (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96, p=0.02); however, this association was not statistically significant in the model adjusted for covariates (aOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.03, p=0.09).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest that patients have a better experience with pain management during medical abortion when able to opt-in to codeine provision following counselling versus receiving this medication routinely.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9219,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2023-201893\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2023-201893","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估患者在妊娠 10 周以内药物流产过程中选择提供可待因还是普遍提供可待因的疼痛管理经验:我们邀请妊娠 10 周以内接受药物流产的患者参与 2021 年 11 月至 2022 年 3 月期间的匿名在线英语调查。我们进行了序数回归分析,比较了选择提供可待因组和普遍提供可待因组的疼痛管理满意度(5 点李克特量表)和最大流产疼痛评分(11 点数字评分量表):在受邀参与调查的 11 906 名患者中,1625 人(13.6%)完成了调查。参与者报告的平均最大疼痛评分为 6.8±2.2。共有 1149 名参与者(70.7%)表示在流产过程中使用了可待因止痛。选择提供可待因组的参与者对疼痛控制满意度明显高于普通组(aOR 1.48,95% CI 1.12 至 1.96,pConclusion):我们的研究结果表明,与常规接受可待因药物治疗相比,如果患者能够在咨询后选择接受可待因药物治疗,他们在药物流产过程中的疼痛治疗体验会更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Opt-in versus universal codeine provision for medical abortion up to 10 weeks of gestation at British Pregnancy Advisory Service: a cross-sectional evaluation.

Objective: To assess patient experiences of pain management during medical abortion up to 10 weeks' gestation with opt-in versus universal codeine provision.

Methods: We invited patients who underwent medical abortion up to 10 weeks of gestation to participate in an online, anonymous, English-language survey from November 2021 to March 2022. We performed ordinal regression analyses to compare satisfaction with pain management (5-point Likert scale) and maximum abortion pain score (11-point numerical rating scale) in the opt-in versus universal codeine provision groups.

Results: Of 11 906 patients invited to participate, 1625 (13.6%) completed the survey. Participants reported a mean maximum pain score of 6.8±2.2. A total of 1149 participants (70.7%) reported using codeine for pain management during their abortion. Participants in the opt-in codeine provision group were significantly more likely to be satisfied with their pain management than those in the universal group (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.96, p<0.01). Maximum abortion pain scores were lower on average among the opt-in codeine provision group (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96, p=0.02); however, this association was not statistically significant in the model adjusted for covariates (aOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.03, p=0.09).

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that patients have a better experience with pain management during medical abortion when able to opt-in to codeine provision following counselling versus receiving this medication routinely.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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