无检查药物流产--对选择性使用流产前检查证据的审查。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Amanda Cleeve, Emma Wallengren, Karin Brandell, Sabrina Lee, Margit Endler, John Reynolds-Wright
{"title":"无检查药物流产--对选择性使用流产前检查证据的审查。","authors":"Amanda Cleeve, Emma Wallengren, Karin Brandell, Sabrina Lee, Margit Endler, John Reynolds-Wright","doi":"10.1097/GCO.0000000000000981","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>The last decade has seen a cascade of different telemedicine models for medical abortion (MA) being tested and implemented. Among these service delivery models is the 'no-test' MA model, in which care is provided remotely and eligibility for the MA is based on history alone. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the existing evidence for no-test MA.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>The evidence base for no-test MA relies heavily on cohort and noncomparative studies predominantly from high resource settings. Recent findings indicate that no-test MA is safe, effective, and highly acceptable. Diagnoses of ectopic pregnancy and underestimation of gestational age were rare. Identified advantages included shortening time to access MA and mitigating access barriers such as cost, and geographical barriers. Abortion seekers valued omitting the ultrasound citing reasons such as privacy concerns, costs, more flexibility, and control. The impacts of no-test MA on unscheduled postabortion contacts and visits and on contraceptive use were unclear due to limited evidence.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>No-test MA can be provided to complement other care pathways including those with some or no in-person care. Further research is needed to allow for widespread adoption of no-test MA and scale-up in a variety of contexts, including low-resource settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":55194,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No test medical abortion - a review of the evidence on selective use of preabortion testing.\",\"authors\":\"Amanda Cleeve, Emma Wallengren, Karin Brandell, Sabrina Lee, Margit Endler, John Reynolds-Wright\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/GCO.0000000000000981\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>The last decade has seen a cascade of different telemedicine models for medical abortion (MA) being tested and implemented. Among these service delivery models is the 'no-test' MA model, in which care is provided remotely and eligibility for the MA is based on history alone. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the existing evidence for no-test MA.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>The evidence base for no-test MA relies heavily on cohort and noncomparative studies predominantly from high resource settings. Recent findings indicate that no-test MA is safe, effective, and highly acceptable. Diagnoses of ectopic pregnancy and underestimation of gestational age were rare. Identified advantages included shortening time to access MA and mitigating access barriers such as cost, and geographical barriers. Abortion seekers valued omitting the ultrasound citing reasons such as privacy concerns, costs, more flexibility, and control. The impacts of no-test MA on unscheduled postabortion contacts and visits and on contraceptive use were unclear due to limited evidence.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>No-test MA can be provided to complement other care pathways including those with some or no in-person care. Further research is needed to allow for widespread adoption of no-test MA and scale-up in a variety of contexts, including low-resource settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55194,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000981\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000981","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

审查目的:在过去的十年中,医疗流产(MA)的远程医疗模式层出不穷,并不断得到试验和实施。在这些服务提供模式中,有一种是 "免检查 "医学流产模式,即通过远程方式提供护理,并仅根据病史来确定是否有资格进行医学流产。本综述旨在概述免检人工流产的现有证据:免测试医疗补助的证据基础主要依赖于高资源环境下的队列研究和非比较研究。最近的研究结果表明,免检人工流产是安全、有效和高度可接受的。宫外孕诊断和孕龄估计不足的情况很少见。已确定的优点包括缩短了获得人工流产的时间,减少了获得人工流产的障碍,如费用和地理障碍。寻求流产者重视省略超声波检查,理由包括隐私问题、成本、更大的灵活性和控制。由于缺乏证据,免检人工流产术对人工流产后计划外接触和就诊以及避孕药具使用的影响尚不明确。摘要:免检人工流产术可作为其他护理途径的补充,包括那些有一些或没有面对面护理的途径。需要进一步开展研究,以便在各种情况下(包括低资源环境)广泛采用免检人工流产术并扩大其规模。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
No test medical abortion - a review of the evidence on selective use of preabortion testing.

Purpose of review: The last decade has seen a cascade of different telemedicine models for medical abortion (MA) being tested and implemented. Among these service delivery models is the 'no-test' MA model, in which care is provided remotely and eligibility for the MA is based on history alone. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the existing evidence for no-test MA.

Recent findings: The evidence base for no-test MA relies heavily on cohort and noncomparative studies predominantly from high resource settings. Recent findings indicate that no-test MA is safe, effective, and highly acceptable. Diagnoses of ectopic pregnancy and underestimation of gestational age were rare. Identified advantages included shortening time to access MA and mitigating access barriers such as cost, and geographical barriers. Abortion seekers valued omitting the ultrasound citing reasons such as privacy concerns, costs, more flexibility, and control. The impacts of no-test MA on unscheduled postabortion contacts and visits and on contraceptive use were unclear due to limited evidence.

Summary: No-test MA can be provided to complement other care pathways including those with some or no in-person care. Further research is needed to allow for widespread adoption of no-test MA and scale-up in a variety of contexts, including low-resource settings.

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
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
104
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​​​​​Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology is a bimonthly publication offering a unique and wide ranging perspective on the key developments in the field. Each issue features hand-picked review articles from our team of expert editors. With eleven disciplines published across the year – including reproductive endocrinology, gynecologic cancer and fertility– every issue also contains annotated references detailing the merits of the most important papers.
×
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