Implementing medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol in Norway 1998-2013
- PMID: 28031316
- PMCID: PMC5837406
- DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyw270
Implementing medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol in Norway 1998-2013
Abstract
Background: Medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol was introduced in Norway in 1998, and since then there has been an almost complete change from predominantly surgical to medical abortions. We aimed to describe the medical abortion implementation process, and to compare characteristics of women obtaining medical and surgical abortion.
Methods: Information from all departments of obstetrics and gynaecology in Norway on the time of implementation of medical abortion and abortion procedures in use up to 12 weeks of gestation was assessed by surveys in 2008 and 2012. We also analysed data from the National Abortion Registry comprising 223 692 women requesting abortion up to 12 weeks of gestation during 1998-2013.
Results: In 2012, all hospitals offered medical abortion, 84.4% offered medical abortion at 9-12 weeks of gestation and 92.1% offered home administration of misoprostol. The use of medical abortion increased from 5.9% of all abortions in 1998 to 82.1% in 2013. Compared with women having a surgical abortion, women obtaining medical abortion had higher odds for undergoing an abortion at 4-6 weeks (adjusted OR 2.33; 95% confidence interval 2.28-2.38). Waiting time between registered request for an abortion until termination was reduced from 11.3 days in 1998 to 7.3 days in 2013.
Conclusions: Norwegian women have gained access to more treatment modalities and simplified protocols for medical abortion. At the same time they obtained abortions at an earlier gestational age and the waiting time has been reduced.
Keywords: Medical abortion; Norway; mifepristone; misoprostol; registry.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association
Figures
Similar articles
-
Home self-administration of vaginal misoprostol for medical abortion at 50-63 days compared with gestation of below 50 days.Hum Reprod. 2010 May;25(5):1153-7. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deq037. Epub 2010 Feb 19. Hum Reprod. 2010. PMID: 20172871
-
Medical abortion with mifepristone and home administration of misoprostol up to 63 days' gestation.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014 Jul;93(7):647-53. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12398. Epub 2014 May 23. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014. PMID: 24766569 Free PMC article.
-
Randomised controlled trial comparing the efficacy of same-day administration of mifepristone and misoprostol for termination of pregnancy with the standard 36 to 48 hour protocol.BJOG. 2007 Feb;114(2):207-15. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01179.x. BJOG. 2007. PMID: 17305893 Clinical Trial.
-
Second trimester medical abortion with mifepristone-misoprostol and misoprostol alone: a review of methods and management.Reprod Health Matters. 2008 May;16(31 Suppl):162-72. doi: 10.1016/S0968-8080(08)31371-8. Reprod Health Matters. 2008. PMID: 18772097 Review.
-
Update on second trimester medical abortion.Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Dec;29(6):413-418. doi: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000409. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2017. PMID: 28922193 Review.
Cited by
-
Factors influencing abortion duration, bleeding volume, pain scores, and anxiety levels during medical abortion: a cross-sectional study.BMC Womens Health. 2025 Apr 15;25(1):183. doi: 10.1186/s12905-025-03672-9. BMC Womens Health. 2025. PMID: 40234841 Free PMC article.
-
Feasibility of medication abortion self-care service delivery in Ghana.Reprod Health. 2025 May 2;22(1):64. doi: 10.1186/s12978-025-02021-1. Reprod Health. 2025. PMID: 40317063 Free PMC article.
-
Service provider perceptions of the trend in severity of symptoms and complications in women admitted following an incomplete abortion.J Family Med Prim Care. 2018 Nov-Dec;7(6):1521-1526. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_188_18. J Family Med Prim Care. 2018. PMID: 30613553 Free PMC article.
-
Interpregnancy interval and adverse pregnancy outcomes among pregnancies following miscarriages or induced abortions in Norway (2008-2016): A cohort study.PLoS Med. 2022 Nov 22;19(11):e1004129. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004129. eCollection 2022 Nov. PLoS Med. 2022. PMID: 36413512 Free PMC article.
-
Induced abortion and future use of IVF treatment; A nationwide register study.PLoS One. 2019 Nov 14;14(11):e0225162. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225162. eCollection 2019. PLoS One. 2019. PMID: 31725766 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Grimes DA, Benson J, Singh S. et al. Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic. Lancet 2006;368(9550):1908–19. - PubMed
-
- Sedgh G, Singh S, Shah IH, Åhman E, Henshaw SK, Bankole A.. Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008. Lancet 2012;379(9816):625–32. - PubMed
-
- Løkeland M, Akerkar R, Askeland OM. et al. Rapport om svangerskapsavbrudd for 2015. [Termination of pregnancy report for 2015] 2016. http://www.fhi.no/dokumenter/92e78ccc42.pdf (19 April 2016, date last accessed).
-
- Norwegian Parliament St.meld nr 16 (1995-96) Om erfaringer med lov om svangerskapsavbrudd mv. [White Paper number 16 (1995-96) On experiences with the termination of pregnancy law] Oslo: Ministry of Health, 1997.
-
- The Norwegian Medicines Agency Mifegyne - 200 mg 2014. http://www.legemiddelverket.no/Legemiddelsoek/Sider/Legemiddelvisning.as... (12 December 2014, date last accessed).
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical