Provider Mistrust and Telemedicine Abortion Care Preferences Among Patients in Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky

Accuracy of survey-based assessment of eligibility for medication abortion compared with clinician assessment

BACKGROUND

With increasingly restricted access to facility-based abortion in the United States, pregnant people are increasingly relying on models of care that use history-based or no-test approaches for eligibility assessment. Minimal research has examined the accuracy of abortion patients' self-assessment of eligibility for medication abortion using their health history. This step is necessary for ensuring optimal access to history-based or no-test models, as well as potential over-the-counter access.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the accuracy of pregnant people's eligibility for medication abortion as determined using their self-reported health history, compared with clinician assessments using ultrasound and other tests.

STUDY DESIGN

In this diagnostic accuracy study, we recruited people seeking medication or procedural abortion from 9 abortion facilities, aged ≥15 years, English- or Spanish-speaking, and with no prior ultrasound conducted at the recruitment facility. Before ultrasound, we surveyed participants on medication abortion eligibility, including estimated gestational duration, medical history, contraindications, and ectopic pregnancy risk factors such as pain and bleeding symptoms. We compared patients' eligibility based on self-reported history with subsequent clinician assessment, focusing on overall diagnostic accuracy, or area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, and proportion with discordant patient and clinician eligibility assessment, using 77 days as the upper gestational duration limit.

RESULTS

Overall, 22.1% of 1386 participants were ineligible for medication abortion according to clinician assessment. Overall diagnostic accuracy of self-assessment was acceptable (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve=0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.67), with sensitivity of 92.2% (88.6-94.9) and specificity of 37.8% (34.9-40.7). Very few participants (n=24; 1.7%) self-assessed as eligible when the clinician deemed them ineligible; many more (n=672; 48.5%) self-assessed as ineligible when the clinician deemed them eligible. The most common patient-reported contraindications included unexplained pain (55.5%), gestational duration >77 days (36.5%), and anemia (29.0%). On its own, unexplained pain had poor sensitivity in identifying those with clinician concern for ectopic pregnancy (41.7%; 95% confidence interval, 15.2-72.3). Removing unexplained pain as a screening criterion resulted in higher accuracy (0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.74) (P<.001).

CONCLUSION

History-based screening protocols are highly effective at ensuring that few people receive medication abortion when ineligible. However, a sizable group screens as ineligible when they are in fact eligible, suggesting a need for more specific screening questions.

Impact of State Abortion Policies on Family Medicine Practice and Training After Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization

PURPOSE

The Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs) Supreme Court decision revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Now, restrictive state abortion laws may contribute to the shortage and strain already felt in primary care practice, especially related to the provision of reproductive health care. The purpose of this study is to evaluate perceived impacts of state abortion legislation on family medicine clinicians' practice and medical education regarding reproductive health care.

METHODS

Ten questions were added to the 2022 Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance general membership survey to evaluate impact on relevant themes in reproductive health care and training after the Dobbs decision. Responses were categorized by severity of restriction of state abortion policies.

RESULTS

Of 1,196 respondents, 49.7% reported employment in states with very restrictive or restrictive abortion policies. The 991 respondents with clinical responsibilities reported significant (P <.05) changes in their counseling practices, clinical decision making, worry of legal risks, and trust in patients' self-reported reproductive medical history, compared with peers in protective states. Perceived patient trust toward clinicians remained unchanged. Almost one-half of clinical respondents reported an absence of reproductive health care guidance or recommendations. Restrictive abortion policies significantly (P <.05) reduced the desirability and confidence in resident training programs.

CONCLUSIONS

Reported changes to clinical activities and training, coming early after the Dobbs decision, affect our current and future workforce and therefore, our patients. Future studies are needed to document continued impact of state restrictions and inform policy to support family medicine clinicians in reproductive health practice and education.

'We had that abortion together': abortion networks and access to il/legal abortions in Turkey

Abortion was legalised in Turkey in 1983 with a 10-week limit, restrictions on who could provide abortions, and spousal or parental consent requirements. Currently, although abortion is legal, because of structural barriers, access is restricted (O'Neil, Altuntaş, and Keskin 2020). This study aimed to investigate how women strategically mobilise their social networks to overcome such restrictions to abortion care. Drawing from 25 in-depth interviews with urban-educated cis-women aged 24-30, I identify three groups within abortion networks: included, excluded and ambiguous. While included groups comprised largely of female family and friends, excluded groups were male family members and organisations, and the ambiguous category included health professionals and partners. Supporting findings in other contexts, individuals initially utilise their abortion networks to access the provider, they then build abortion solidarity networks to act as buffers against groups they wish to exclude during the abortion experience. Additionally, I show that excluded and ambiguous networks also impact abortion access, decision-making, and experience, even pushing individuals to follow through with illegal or semi-legal abortion procedures. Findings draw attention to the structural boundaries surrounding abortion laws, how patriarchal institutions make access to abortion care and abortion networks challenging, and how social networks may be utilised to alleviate such obstacles.

Telehealth and Willingness to Pay for Internet Services

Introduction: Telehealth is becoming integral to health care delivery, which may create a higher need for better internet. This is the first study to examine whether users are willing to spend more on their internet if they are (1) more experienced in using telehealth, (2) more optimistic about telehealth benefits, and (3) less concerned about the difficulty of using telehealth. Methods: We surveyed 5,200 Americans about their willingness to pay (WTP) for internet speed and quality on the one hand, and their (1) prior use of telehealth, (2) opinion about the benefits of telehealth, and (3) opinion about the difficulties of using telehealth. We stratified the sample using the three aspects above and conducted a conjoint analysis to estimate the WTP for internet speed and quality within each stratum. Results: Compared with respondents who had never used telehealth, respondents who had used five to six different types of telehealth services were willing to spend 50.4% more on their internet plans. Users who most firmly believed in the benefits of telehealth were willing to spend 59.2% more than the most pessimistic users. Users who had the lowest concerns about the difficulty of using telehealth were willing to spend 114% more than users with the most perceived difficulty. Discussion: We found strong ties between the WTP for internet and prior telehealth use and perceptions of telehealth benefits and barriers. Thus, internet expenditures may be influenced by users' anticipation of using telehealth. Future studies may investigate the causality of the relationship.

Telemedicine Abortion

Telemedicine has become a substantial part of abortion care in recent years. In this review, we discuss the history and regulatory landscape of telemedicine for medication abortion in the United States, different models of care for telemedicine, and the safety and effectiveness of medication abortion via telemedicine, including using history-based screening protocols for medication abortion without ultrasound. We also explore the acceptability of telemedicine for patients and their perspectives on its benefits, as well as the use of telemedicine for other parts of abortion care. Telemedicine has expanded access to abortion for many, although there remain limitations to its implementation.

The Provision of Abortion Care via Telehealth in the United States: A Rapid Review

INTRODUCTION

The recent Supreme Court decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health that has overruled Roe v. Wade has resulted in severe limitations of abortion access throughout the United States. Telehealth has been put forth as one solution for improving access for reproductive health care, including abortion services. Telehealth has demonstrated safety and efficacy in several health care disciplines; however, its use for abortion care and services has not been explored and synthesized.

METHODS

As part of a larger review on telehealth and general reproductive health, our team identified a moderate amount of literature on telehealth and abortion care. We conducted a rapid review searching for eligible studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. Information was extracted from each included study to explore 4 key areas of inquiry: (1) clinical effectiveness, (2) patient and provider experiences, (3) barriers and facilitators, and (4) the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies on the use of telehealth for providing abortion services published between 2011 and 2022 were included. Telehealth for medical abortion increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and was found to be safe and clinically effective, with high patient satisfaction. Overall, telehealth improved access and removed barriers for patients including lack of transportation. Legal restrictions in certain states were cited as the primary barriers. Studies contained limited information on the perspectives and experiences of health care providers and diverse patient populations.

DISCUSSION

Abortion care via telehealth is safe and effective with high satisfaction and may also remove barriers to care including transportation and fear. Removing restrictions on telehealth for the provision of abortion services may further improve access to care and promote greater health equity.

Medication abortion via digital health in the United States: a systematic scoping review

Digital health, including telemedicine, has increased access to abortion care. The convenience, flexibility of appointment times, and ensured privacy to abortion users may make abortion services via telemedicine preferable. This scoping review systematically mapped studies conducted on abortion services via telemedicine, including their effectiveness and acceptability for abortion users and providers. All published papers included abortion services via telemedicine in the United States were considered. Articles were searched in PubMed, CINAHL, and Google Scholar databases in September 2022. The findings were synthesized narratively, and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines were used to report this study. Out of 757 retrieved articles, 33 articles were selected based on the inclusion criteria. These studies were published between 2011 and 2022, with 24 published in the last 3 years. The study found that telemedicine increased access to abortion care in the United States, especially for people in remote areas or those worried about stigma from in-person visits. The effectiveness of abortion services via telemedicine was comparable to in-clinic visits, with 6% or fewer abortions requiring surgical intervention. Both care providers and abortion seekers expressed positive perceptions of telemedicine-based abortion services. However, abortion users reported mixed emotions, with some preferring in-person visits. The most common reasons for choosing telemedicine included the distance to the abortion clinic, convenience, privacy, cost, flexibility of appointment times, and state laws imposing waiting periods or restrictive policies. Telemedicine offered a preferable option for abortion seekers and providers. The feasibility of accessing abortion services via telemedicine in low-resource settings needs further investigation.