Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Update on Medical Abortion: Expanding Safe and Equitable, Patient-Centered Care

  • Family Planning (A. Burke, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Addressing disparities in abortion access and efforts to end the global problem of unsafe abortion are key public health and human rights priorities. Optimizing the role of various health workers in supporting safe medical abortion practices and working to remove unnecessary barriers to care are key strategies that address inequities in outcomes after abortion worldwide. Medical abortion using evidence-based protocols is effective through 70 days gestation and can safely be provided by non-physician providers in outpatient settings. Removing barriers of in-office administration of mifepristone and simplifying follow-up protocols are evidence-based approaches to expanding access to medical abortion, particularly in settings where access to surgical abortion is limited. Research supports expanding the role of women themselves, as well as task-shifting among health worker teams in providing safe abortion and postabortion care. Simplifying the process of medical abortion, including allowing prescription and home administration of mifepristone and utilizing telemedicine for follow-up protocols are safe and feasible, can optimize use of health resources and improve patient experience with medical abortion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Gerdts C, Tuncalp O, Johnston H, Ganatra B. Measuring abortion-related mortality: challenges and opportunities. Reprod Health. 2015;12:87.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. World Health Organization. Unsafe abortion: global and regional estimates of the incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality in 2008. 6th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Singh S, Maddow-Zimet I. Facility-based treatment for medical complications resulting from unsafe pregnancy termination in the developing world, 2012: a review of evidence from 26 countries. BJOG, 2015. National estimates from 26 countries—including published studies and unpublished data—were used to estimate that 7 million women in the developing world were treated for complications from unsafe abortion in 2012.

  4. Kassebaum NJ, Bertozzi-Villa A, Coggeshall MS, et al. Global, regional, and national levels and causes of maternal mortality during 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2013. Lancet. 2014;384(9947):980–1004.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. World Health Organization. Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems: legal and policy considerations. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bartlett LA, Berg CJ, Shulman HB, et al. Risk factors for legal induced abortion-related mortality in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(4):729–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Institute G. Facts on induced abortion worldwide. 2012.

  8. Vlassoff M, Walker D, Shearer J, Newlands D, Singh S. Estimates of health care system costs of unsafe abortion in Africa and Latin America. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2009;35(3):114–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. World Health Organization. The prevention and management of unsafe abortion: report of a technical working group in Geneva, 12–15 April 1992. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ganatra B, Tuncalp O, Johnston HB, Johnson Jr BR, Gulmezoglu AM, Temmerman M. From concept to measurement: operationalizing WHO’s definition of unsafe abortion. Bull World Health Organ. 2014;92(3):155.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. World Health Organization. Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems. 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Haider S, Stoffel C, Donenberg G, Geller S. Reproductive health disparities: a focus on family planning and prevention among minority women and adolescents. Glob Adv Health Med. 2013;2(5):94–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jones RK, Kavanaugh ML. Changes in abortion rates between 2000 and 2008 and lifetime incidence of abortion. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(6):1358–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hutcheon JA, Bodnar LM, Simhan HN. Medicaid pregnancy termination funding and racial disparities in congenital anomaly-related infant deaths. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(1):163–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Grossman D, White K, Hopkins K, Potter JE. The public health threat of anti-abortion legislation. Contraception. 2014;89(2):73–4.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Grossman D, Holt K, Peña M, et al. Self-induction of abortion among women in the United States. Reprod Health Matters. 2010;18(36):136–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Grimes DA, Benson J, Singh S, et al. Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic. Lancet. 2006;368(9550):1908–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lim LM, Singh K. Termination of pregnancy and unsafe abortion. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;28(6):859–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Snow RC, Laski L, Mutumba M. Sexual and reproductive health: progress and outstanding needs. Glob Publ Health. 2015;10(2):149–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen MJ, Creinin MD. Mifepristone with buccal misoprostol for medical abortion: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(1):12–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Winikoff B, Dzuba IG, Chong E, et al. Extending outpatient medical abortion services through 70 days of gestational age. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(5):1070–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bracken H, Dabash R, Tsertsvadze G, et al. A two-pill sublingual misoprostol outpatient regimen following mifepristone for medical abortion through 70 days’ LMP: a prospective comparative open-label trial. Contraception. 2014;89(3):181–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sanhueza Smith P, Pena M, Dzuba IG, et al. Safety, efficacy and acceptability of outpatient mifepristone-misoprostol medical abortion through 70 days since last menstrual period in public sector facilities in Mexico City. Reprod Health Matters. 2015;22(44 Suppl 1):75–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Abbas D, Chong E, Raymond EG. Outpatient medical abortion is safe and effective through 70 days gestation. Contraception. 2015;92(3):197–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ireland Ld GM, Chen Ay. Medical compared with surgical abortion for effective pregnancy termination in the first trimester. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:1.

  26. Blum J, Raghavan S, Dabash R, et al. Comparison of misoprostol-only and combined mifepristone-misoprostol regimens for home-based early medical abortion in Tunisia and Vietnam. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012;118(2):166–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sheldon GF, Ricketts TC, Charles A, King J, Fraher EP, Meyer A. The global health workforce shortage: role of surgeons and other providers. Adv Surg. 2008;42:63–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Anyangwe SC, Mtonga C. Inequities in the global health workforce: the greatest impediment to health in Sub-Saharan Africa. Int J Environ Res Publ Health. 2007;4(2):93–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. World Health Organization. Optimizing health worker roles to improve access to key maternal and newborn health interventions through task shifting. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 613: increasing access to abortion. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124(5):1060–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. World Health Organization. Health workers roles in providing safe abortion care and post abortion contraception. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015. The WHO Guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on how task-shifting in abortion care can be implemented to improve disparities in access to care in low and high-resource settings.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ganatra B. Health worker roles in safe abortion care and post-abortion contraception. Lancet Glob Health. 2015;3(9):e512–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Barnard S, Kim C, Park MH, Ngo TD. Doctors or mid-level providers for abortion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;7:CD011242. This meta-analysis evaluated eight studies with over 22,000 participants to compare the safety and effectiveness of abortion provision by physicians compared to advanced level practitioners (nurse practitioners or nurse midwives) in a range of settings found no difference in the risks of medical abortion failure or complications after first trimester aspiration abortion.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kopp Kallner H, Gomperts R, Salomonsson E, Johansson M, Marions L, Gemzell-Danielsson K. The efficacy, safety and acceptability of medical termination of pregnancy provided by standard care by doctors or by nurse-midwives: a randomised controlled equivalence trial. BJOG. 2015;122(4):510–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Guttmacher Institute. State policies in brief: Medication abortion (2015). Accessed: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_MA.pdf

  36. Swica Y, Chong E, Middleton T, et al. Acceptability of home use of mifepristone for medical abortion. Contraception. 2013;88(1):122–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Chong E, Frye LJ, Castle J, Dean G, Kuehl L, Winikoff B. A prospective, non-randomized study of home-use of mifepristone for medical abortion in the U.S. Contraception. 2015. Prospective, non-randomized, open label study in the U.S. enrolled 400 women with pregnancies up to 63 days undergoing medical abortion and found home administration of mifepristone was highly acceptable to women, allowed for flexibility and decreased time missed from work.

  38. Gold M, Chong E. If we can do it for misoprostol, why not for mifepristone? The case for taking mifepristone out of the office in medical abortion. Contraception. 2015;92(3):194–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Grossman D, Goldstone P. Mifepristone by prescription: a dream in the United States but reality in Australia. Contraception. 2015;92(3):186–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Raymond EG, Grossman D, Wiebe E, Winikoff B. Reaching women where they are: eliminating the initial in-person medical abortion visit. Contraception. 2015.

  41. Grossman DA, Grindlay K, Buchacker T, Potter JE, Schmertmann CP. Changes in service delivery patterns after introduction of telemedicine provision of medical abortion in Iowa. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(1):73–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Cameron ST, Glasier A, Dewart H, Johnstone A, Burnside A. Telephone follow-up and self-performed urine pregnancy testing after early medical abortion: a service evaluation. Contraception. 2012;86(1):67–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ngoc NT, Bracken H, Blum J, et al. Acceptability and feasibility of phone follow-up after early medical abortion in Vietnam: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):88–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Blum J, Shochet T, Lynd K, et al. Can at-home semi-quantitative pregnancy tests serve as a replacement for clinical follow-up of medical abortion? A US study. Contraception. 2012;86(6):757–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Bracken H, Lohr PA, Taylor J, Morroni C, Winikoff B. Ru ok? The acceptability and feasibility of remote technologies for follow-up after early medical abortion. Contraception. 2014;90(1):29–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Grindlay K, Lane K, Grossman D. Women’s and providers’ experiences with medical abortion provided through telemedicine: a qualitative study. Womens Health Issues. 2013;23(2):e117–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. World Health Organization. Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems. 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Jackson AV, Dayananda I, Fortin JM, Fitzmaurice G, Goldberg AB. Can women accurately assess the outcome of medical abortion based on symptoms alone? Contraception. 2012;85(2):192–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Cameron ST, Glasier A, Johnstone A, Dewart H, Campbell A. Can women determine the success of early medical termination of pregnancy themselves? Contraception. 2015;91(1):6–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Michie L, Cameron ST. Simplified follow-up after early medical abortion: 12-month experience of a telephone call and self-performed low-sensitivity urine pregnancy test. Contraception. 2014;89(5):440–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Lynd K, Blum J, Ngoc NT, Shochet T, Blumenthal PD, Winikoff B. Simplified medical abortion using a semi-quantitative pregnancy test for home-based follow-up. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013;121(2):144–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sonalkar S, Hou MY, Borgatta L. Administration of the etonogestrel contraceptive implant on the day of mifepristone for medical abortion: a pilot study. Contraception. 2013;88(5):671–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Sonalkar S, Mcclusky J, Hou MY, Borgatta L. Administration of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate on the day of mifepristone for medical abortion: a pilot study. Contraception. 2015;91(2):174–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Sneeringer RK, Billings DL, Ganatra B, Baird TL. Roles of pharmacists in expanding access to safe and effective medical abortion in developing countries: a review of the literature. J Public Health Policy. 2012;33(2):218–29.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. WHO. Health worker roles in providing safe abortion care and post-abortion contraception. Geneva: World Health Organization. Available from http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/abortion-task-shifting/en/. 2015

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rochester School of Medicine, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Box 668, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA

    Natalie S. Whaley & Sarah J. Betstadt

Authors
  1. Natalie S. Whaley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah J. Betstadt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natalie S. Whaley.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Natalie S. Whaley and Sarah J. Betstadt declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Family Planning

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Whaley, N.S., Betstadt, S.J. Update on Medical Abortion: Expanding Safe and Equitable, Patient-Centered Care. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep 5, 48–54 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-016-0144-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-016-0144-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation