远程医疗与诊所药物流产提供。

IF 11.7 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Anna E Fiastro, Erin K Thayer, Samantha N Fredman, Mary Stoa, Sara Manns, Sarah B Munro, Emmalie Griswold, Abigail Aiken, Rebecca Gomperts, Wendy V Norman, Emily M Godfrey
{"title":"远程医疗与诊所药物流产提供。","authors":"Anna E Fiastro, Erin K Thayer, Samantha N Fredman, Mary Stoa, Sara Manns, Sarah B Munro, Emmalie Griswold, Abigail Aiken, Rebecca Gomperts, Wendy V Norman, Emily M Godfrey","doi":"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.40034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>In states that restrict abortion provision, residents rely on telehealth medication abortion (teleMAB) or travel out of state for in-clinic care; however, little is known about how patients using these modalities differ.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare characteristics of Kansas and Texas residents receiving teleMAB vs in-clinic medication abortion and to assess geographic and socioeconomic factors associated with modality of care.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This retrospective cross-sectional analysis used electronic medical record data for patients residing in Kansas or Texas who received medication abortion care from a teleMAB service or from an abortion facility in Kansas from February 1 to June 30, 2024. Patients younger than 18 years were excluded because only the telehealth site served this age group.</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>Patient sociodemographic characteristics (age, race and ethnicity, and number of children), gestational age, and county-level distance to the nearest abortion facility, social vulnerability, and rural-urban designation.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The main outcome was receipt of teleMAB vs in-clinic care. Differences between patients who received teleMAB vs in-clinic care were assessed using χ2 and t tests for bivariate variables and multivariable logistic regression for adjusted comparisons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The teleMAB service served 12 823 patients (Texas: n = 12 552; Kansas: n = 271); the clinic served 725 patients (Texas: n = 587; Kansas: n = 138). Mean (SD) age was 26 (6) years for Kansas residents and 27 (6) years for Texas residents. In both states, more telehealth patients self-identified as Hispanic, Latino, Latina, or Latine (Texas: 3739 of 12 552 [32%]; Kansas: 48 of 271 [18%]) than in-clinic patients (Texas: 14 of 587 [3%]; Kansas: 8 of 138 [7%]) (P < .001). This difference remained among Texas residents after adjustment. In both states, compared with in-clinic patients, telehealth patients were more likely to be at less than 6 weeks' gestation (Texas: 7648 of 12 552 [61%] vs 155 of 587 [27%]; Kansas: 159 of 271 [59%] vs 45 of 138 [33%]; P < .001) and to have no children (Texas: 5545 of 12 552 [44%] vs 42 of 587 [7%]; Kansas: 137 of 271 [51%] vs 5 of 138 [4%]; P < .001). In Texas, patients who lived farthest from in-clinic care were more likely to receive telehealth than those who lived shorter distances (average marginal effect, 0.003; 95% CI, 0.002-0.004).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this cross-sectional study of patients who used medication abortion, teleMAB patients more often had no children, were living farther from an abortion facility, and represented populations facing structural racism and long-documented barriers to abortion care compared with in-clinic patients, particularly in abortion-restrictive states. A higher number of patients at lower gestational age received telehealth than in-clinic services, suggesting more convenient and timely care.</p>","PeriodicalId":14694,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Network Open","volume":"9 10","pages":"e2640034"},"PeriodicalIF":11.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Telehealth vs In-Clinic Medication Abortion Provision.\",\"authors\":\"Anna E Fiastro, Erin K Thayer, Samantha N Fredman, Mary Stoa, Sara Manns, Sarah B Munro, Emmalie Griswold, Abigail Aiken, Rebecca Gomperts, Wendy V Norman, Emily M Godfrey\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.40034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>In states that restrict abortion provision, residents rely on telehealth medication abortion (teleMAB) or travel out of state for in-clinic care; however, little is known about how patients using these modalities differ.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare characteristics of Kansas and Texas residents receiving teleMAB vs in-clinic medication abortion and to assess geographic and socioeconomic factors associated with modality of care.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This retrospective cross-sectional analysis used electronic medical record data for patients residing in Kansas or Texas who received medication abortion care from a teleMAB service or from an abortion facility in Kansas from February 1 to June 30, 2024. Patients younger than 18 years were excluded because only the telehealth site served this age group.</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>Patient sociodemographic characteristics (age, race and ethnicity, and number of children), gestational age, and county-level distance to the nearest abortion facility, social vulnerability, and rural-urban designation.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The main outcome was receipt of teleMAB vs in-clinic care. Differences between patients who received teleMAB vs in-clinic care were assessed using χ2 and t tests for bivariate variables and multivariable logistic regression for adjusted comparisons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The teleMAB service served 12 823 patients (Texas: n = 12 552; Kansas: n = 271); the clinic served 725 patients (Texas: n = 587; Kansas: n = 138). Mean (SD) age was 26 (6) years for Kansas residents and 27 (6) years for Texas residents. In both states, more telehealth patients self-identified as Hispanic, Latino, Latina, or Latine (Texas: 3739 of 12 552 [32%]; Kansas: 48 of 271 [18%]) than in-clinic patients (Texas: 14 of 587 [3%]; Kansas: 8 of 138 [7%]) (P < .001). This difference remained among Texas residents after adjustment. In both states, compared with in-clinic patients, telehealth patients were more likely to be at less than 6 weeks' gestation (Texas: 7648 of 12 552 [61%] vs 155 of 587 [27%]; Kansas: 159 of 271 [59%] vs 45 of 138 [33%]; P < .001) and to have no children (Texas: 5545 of 12 552 [44%] vs 42 of 587 [7%]; Kansas: 137 of 271 [51%] vs 5 of 138 [4%]; P < .001). In Texas, patients who lived farthest from in-clinic care were more likely to receive telehealth than those who lived shorter distances (average marginal effect, 0.003; 95% CI, 0.002-0.004).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this cross-sectional study of patients who used medication abortion, teleMAB patients more often had no children, were living farther from an abortion facility, and represented populations facing structural racism and long-documented barriers to abortion care compared with in-clinic patients, particularly in abortion-restrictive states. A higher number of patients at lower gestational age received telehealth than in-clinic services, suggesting more convenient and timely care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14694,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMA Network Open\",\"volume\":\"9 10\",\"pages\":\"e2640034\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMA Network Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.40034\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Network Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.40034","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:在限制堕胎规定的州,居民依靠远程医疗药物流产(teleMAB)或到州外的诊所接受治疗;然而,人们对使用这些模式的患者有何不同知之甚少。目的:比较堪萨斯州和德克萨斯州接受teleMAB与临床药物流产的居民的特点,并评估与护理方式相关的地理和社会经济因素。设计、环境和参与者:这项回顾性横断面分析使用了2024年2月1日至6月30日期间居住在堪萨斯州或德克萨斯州接受teleMAB服务或堪萨斯州堕胎机构药物流产护理的患者的电子病历数据。年龄小于18岁的患者被排除在外,因为只有远程医疗站点服务于这个年龄组。暴露:患者的社会人口学特征(年龄、种族和民族、子女数量)、胎龄、到最近堕胎机构的县级距离、社会脆弱性和城乡划分。主要结局和措施:主要结局是接受teleMAB与临床护理。采用双变量χ2和t检验和多变量logistic回归进行校正比较,评估接受teleMAB与临床护理的患者之间的差异。结果:teleMAB服务服务了12 823例患者(德克萨斯州:n = 12 552;堪萨斯州:n = 271);该诊所服务了725名患者(德克萨斯州:n = 587;堪萨斯州:n = 138)。堪萨斯州居民的平均(SD)年龄为26(6)岁,德克萨斯州居民的平均(SD)年龄为27(6)岁。在这两个州,更多的远程医疗患者自认为是西班牙裔、拉丁裔、拉丁裔或拉丁裔(德克萨斯州:12人中有3739人 552人[32%];堪萨斯州:271人中有48人[18%])比门诊患者(德克萨斯州:587人中有14人[3%];结论和相关性:在这项对使用药物流产患者的横断面研究中,与门诊患者相比,teleMAB患者通常没有孩子,居住在离流产机构较远的地方,并且代表着面临结构性种族主义和长期记录的流产护理障碍的人群,特别是在堕胎限制州。低胎龄患者接受远程保健的人数高于门诊服务,表明护理更方便和及时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Telehealth vs In-Clinic Medication Abortion Provision.

Importance: In states that restrict abortion provision, residents rely on telehealth medication abortion (teleMAB) or travel out of state for in-clinic care; however, little is known about how patients using these modalities differ.

Objective: To compare characteristics of Kansas and Texas residents receiving teleMAB vs in-clinic medication abortion and to assess geographic and socioeconomic factors associated with modality of care.

Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective cross-sectional analysis used electronic medical record data for patients residing in Kansas or Texas who received medication abortion care from a teleMAB service or from an abortion facility in Kansas from February 1 to June 30, 2024. Patients younger than 18 years were excluded because only the telehealth site served this age group.

Exposure: Patient sociodemographic characteristics (age, race and ethnicity, and number of children), gestational age, and county-level distance to the nearest abortion facility, social vulnerability, and rural-urban designation.

Main outcomes and measures: The main outcome was receipt of teleMAB vs in-clinic care. Differences between patients who received teleMAB vs in-clinic care were assessed using χ2 and t tests for bivariate variables and multivariable logistic regression for adjusted comparisons.

Results: The teleMAB service served 12 823 patients (Texas: n = 12 552; Kansas: n = 271); the clinic served 725 patients (Texas: n = 587; Kansas: n = 138). Mean (SD) age was 26 (6) years for Kansas residents and 27 (6) years for Texas residents. In both states, more telehealth patients self-identified as Hispanic, Latino, Latina, or Latine (Texas: 3739 of 12 552 [32%]; Kansas: 48 of 271 [18%]) than in-clinic patients (Texas: 14 of 587 [3%]; Kansas: 8 of 138 [7%]) (P < .001). This difference remained among Texas residents after adjustment. In both states, compared with in-clinic patients, telehealth patients were more likely to be at less than 6 weeks' gestation (Texas: 7648 of 12 552 [61%] vs 155 of 587 [27%]; Kansas: 159 of 271 [59%] vs 45 of 138 [33%]; P < .001) and to have no children (Texas: 5545 of 12 552 [44%] vs 42 of 587 [7%]; Kansas: 137 of 271 [51%] vs 5 of 138 [4%]; P < .001). In Texas, patients who lived farthest from in-clinic care were more likely to receive telehealth than those who lived shorter distances (average marginal effect, 0.003; 95% CI, 0.002-0.004).

Conclusions and relevance: In this cross-sectional study of patients who used medication abortion, teleMAB patients more often had no children, were living farther from an abortion facility, and represented populations facing structural racism and long-documented barriers to abortion care compared with in-clinic patients, particularly in abortion-restrictive states. A higher number of patients at lower gestational age received telehealth than in-clinic services, suggesting more convenient and timely care.

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
JAMA Network Open
JAMA Network Open Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
2126
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMA Network Open, a member of the esteemed JAMA Network, stands as an international, peer-reviewed, open-access general medical journal.The publication is dedicated to disseminating research across various health disciplines and countries, encompassing clinical care, innovation in health care, health policy, and global health. JAMA Network Open caters to clinicians, investigators, and policymakers, providing a platform for valuable insights and advancements in the medical field. As part of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications, JAMA Network Open contributes to the collective knowledge and understanding within the medical community.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书