Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Aug;126(9):1094-1102.
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15684. Epub 2019 Apr 25.

Telemedicine for medical abortion: a systematic review

M Endler  1   2 , A Lavelanet  3 , A Cleeve  1 , B Ganatra  3 , R Gomperts  4 , K Gemzell-Danielsson  1
Affiliations

Telemedicine for medical abortion: a systematic review

M Endler et al. BJOG. 2019 Aug.

Abstract

Background: Telemedicine is increasingly being used to access abortion services.

Objective: To assess the success rate, safety, and acceptability for women and providers of medical abortion using telemedicine.

Search strategy: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Web of Science up until 10 November 2017.

Study criteria: We selected studies where telemedicine was used for comprehensive medical abortion services, i.e. assessment/counselling, treatment, and follow up, reporting on success rate (continuing pregnancy, complete abortion, and surgical evacuation), safety (rate of blood transfusion and hospitalisation) or acceptability (satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and recommendation of the service).

Data collection and analysis: Quantitative outcomes were summarised as a range of median rates. Qualitative data were summarised in a narrative synthesis.

Main results: Rates relevant to success rate, safety, and acceptability outcomes for women ≤10+0 weeks' gestation (GW) ranged from 0 to 1.9% for continuing pregnancy, 93.8 to 96.4% for complete abortion, 0.9 to 19.3% for surgical evacuation, 0 to 0.7% for blood transfusion, 0.07 to 2.8% for hospitalisation, 64 to 100% for satisfaction, 0.2 to 2.3% for dissatisfaction, and 90 to 98% for recommendation of the service. Rates in studies also including women >10+0 GW ranged from 1.3 to 2.3% for continuing pregnancy, 8.5 to 20.9% for surgical evacuation, and 90 to 100% for satisfaction. Qualitative studies on acceptability showed no negative impacts for women or providers.

Conclusion: Based on a synthesis of mainly self-reported data, medical abortion through telemedicine seems to be highly acceptable to women and providers, success rate and safety outcomes are similar to those reported in literature for in-person abortion care, and surgical evacuation rates are higher.

Tweetable abstract: A systematic review of medical abortion through telemedicine shows outcome rates similar to in-person care.

Keywords: Medical abortion; telemedicine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Doran F, Nancarrow S. Barriers and facilitators of access to first‐trimester abortion services for women in the developed world: a systematic review. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2015;41:170–80. - PubMed
    1. Kassebaum NJ, Bertozzi‐Villa A, Coggeshall MS, Shackelford KA, Steiner C, Heuton KR, 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 (London, England) 2014;384:980–1004. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Khan KS, Wojdyla D, Say L, Gulmezoglu AM, Van Look PF. WHO analysis of causes of maternal death: a systematic review. Lancet (London, England) 2006;367:1066–74. - PubMed
    1. Sedgh G, Bearak J, Singh S, Bankole A, Popinchalk A, Ganatra B, et al. Abortion incidence between 1990 and 2014: global, regional, and subregional levels and trends. Lancet (London, England) 2016 Jul;16:258–67. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ganatra B, Gerdts C, Rossier C, Johnson BR Jr, Tuncalp O, Assifi A, et al. Global, regional, and subregional classification of abortions by safety, 2010‐14: estimates from a Bayesian hierarchical model. Lancet (London, England) 2017;390:2372–81. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types