Abigail Aiken

and 4 more

Objective To compare the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of medical abortion before and after the introduction of no-test telemedicine Design Cohort study Setting The three main abortion providers in England Population All patients having an early medical abortion (comprising 85% of all medical abortions performed nationally) Methods Comparison of no-test telemedicine hybrid model vs. traditional model (blanket in-person provision including ultrasound), adjusted for baseline differences Main outcome measures Access: waiting time, gestation Effectiveness: successful medical abortion Safety: significant adverse events; ectopic pregnancy and late gestation Acceptability: Patient-reported outcomes Results 52,142 medical abortions were conducted, 29,984 in the telemedicine-hybrid cohort and 22,158 in the traditional cohort. Mean waiting times were 4.2 days shorter in the telemedicine-hybrid cohort and 40% were ≤6 weeks’ gestation vs. 25% in the traditional cohort (p<0.001). There was no difference in success rates (98.8% vs. 98.2%, p=1.0), nor in prevalence of serious adverse events (0.02% vs. 0.04%, p=0.557). Incidence of ectopic pregnancy was equivalent in both cohorts (0.2%, p=0.796); 0.04% of abortions appeared to have been provided after 10 weeks’ gestation with all completed safely at home. In the telemedicine-hybrid cohort, effectiveness was higher in the telemedicine group vs. the in-person group (99.2% vs. 98.1%, p<0.001). Acceptability was high (96% satisfied), 80% reported a future preference for telemedicine, and none reported that they were unable to consult in private using teleconsultation. Conclusions Medical abortion provided through a hybrid model that includes no-test telemedicine without ultrasound is effective, safe, acceptable, and improves access to care. Funding None

Marielle Meurice

and 4 more

Objective: Evaluate satisfaction and experience with telemedicine and home use of mifepristone and misoprostol for abortion to 10 weeks’ gestation. Design: Cross-sectional evaluation. Setting: British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) clinics in England and Wales. Population: 1,144 clients who used mifepristone and misoprostol at home from 11 May to 10 July 2020. Methods: We sent a text message with a link to a web-survey 2-3 weeks after treatment. Questions evaluated satisfaction and experiences, including telephone consultations and provision of medicines by post or collection from clinic. We used bivariate and multivariate regression to explore associations between client characteristics and outcomes. Main Outcome Measures: Overall satisfaction (5-point Likert scale) and reported contact with a healthcare provider (HCP). Results: Respondents primarily described home use of medications as ‘straightforward’ (75.8%) and most were ‘very satisfied’ (78.3%) or ‘satisfied’ (18.6%) with their overall experience. Being ‘very satisfied’ was associated with parity (aOR 1.53, 95% CI 1.09-2.14) and pain control satisfaction (aOR 2.22, 95% CI 1.44-3.44). HCP contact was reported by 14.7%; mainly to BPAS’ telephone aftercare service (76.8%). Dissatisfaction with pain control (aOR 3.62 95% CI 1.79-7.29) and waiting >1 week to use mifepristone (aOR3.71, 95% CI 1.48-9.28) were associated with HCP contact. If needed in future, most (77.8%) would prefer home use of mifepristone and misoprostol and pills by post (68.9%). Conclusions: Satisfaction with home use of mifepristone and misoprostol is high. Most clients do not need HCP support during or after home use, but aftercare should be available.