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
Multicenter Study
. 2021 Aug;128(9):1464-1474.
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.16668. Epub 2021 Mar 24.

Effectiveness, safety and acceptability of no-test medical abortion (termination of pregnancy) provided via telemedicine: a national cohort study

Ara Aiken  1 , P A Lohr  2 , J Lord  3 , N Ghosh  4 , J Starling  5
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Effectiveness, safety and acceptability of no-test medical abortion (termination of pregnancy) provided via telemedicine: a national cohort study

Ara Aiken et al. BJOG. 2021 Aug.

Abstract

Objective: To compare outcomes before and after implementation of medical abortion (termination of pregnancy) without ultrasound via telemedicine.

Design: Cohort analysis.

Setting: The three main abortion providers.

Population or sample: Medical abortions at home at ≤69 days' gestation in two cohorts: traditional model (in-person with ultrasound, n = 22 158) from January to March 2020 versus telemedicine-hybrid model (either in person or via telemedicine without ultrasound, n = 29 984, of whom 18 435 had no-test telemedicine) between April and June 2020. Sample (n = 52 142) comprises 85% of all medical abortions provided nationally.

Methods: Data from electronic records and incident databases were used to compare outcomes between cohorts, adjusted for baseline differences.

Main outcome measures: Treatment success, serious adverse events, waiting times, gestation at treatment, acceptability.

Results: Mean waiting time from referral to treatment was 4.2 days shorter in the telemedicine-hybrid model and more abortions were provided at ≤6 weeks' gestation (40% versus 25%, P < 0.001). Treatment success (98.8% versus 98.2%, P > 0.999), serious adverse events (0.02% versus 0.04%, P = 0.557) and incidence of ectopic pregnancy (0.2% versus 0.2%, P = 0.796) were not different between models. In the telemedicine-hybrid model, 0.04% were estimated to be over 10 weeks' gestation at the time of the abortion; all were completed safely at home. Within the telemedicine-hybrid model, effectiveness was higher with telemedicine than in-person care (99.2% versus 98.1%, P < 0.001). Acceptability of telemedicine was high (96% satisfied) and 80% reported a future preference for telemedicine.

Conclusions: A telemedicine-hybrid model for medical abortion that includes no-test telemedicine and treatment without an ultrasound is effective, safe, acceptable and improves access to care.

Tweetable abstract: Compelling evidence from 52 142 women shows no-test telemedicine abortion is safe, effective and improves care.

Keywords: Abortion; ambulatory care facilities [N02.278.035]; health planning [N03.349]; induced [E04.520.050]; mifepristone [D04.210.500.365.415.580]; misoprostol [D23.469.700.660.500]; pregnancy complications [C13.703]; telemedicine [N04.590.374.800]; termination of pregnancy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Summary of early medical abortion care management during COVID‐19 pandemic (adapted with permission from RCOG Coronavirus [COVID‐19] Infection and Abortion Care – Information for Healthcare Professionals8).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Decision aid for early medical abortion without ultrasound (adapted with permission from RCOG Coronavirus (COVID‐19) infection and abortion care – information for healthcare professionals; 2020‐06‐04‐decision‐aid‐for‐early‐medical‐abortion‐without‐ultrasound.pdf [rcog.org.uk]17)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Bearak J, Popinchalk A, Ganatra B, Moller A‐B, Tunçalp Ö, Beavin C, et al. Unintended pregnancy and abortion by income, region, and the legal status of abortion: estimates from a comprehensive model for 1990–2019. Lancet Global Health 2020;8:e1152–61. - PubMed
    1. Regan L, Glasier A. The British 1967 Abortion Act – still fit for purpose? Lancet 2017;390:1936–7. - PubMed
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) . Abortion Care. Evidence Review A – Accessibility and Sustainability of Abortion Services. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2019. [www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng140/documents/evidence‐review]. - PubMed
    1. O’Shea LE, Hawkins JE, Lord J, Schmidt‐Hansen M, Hasler E, Cameron S, et al. Access to and sustainability of abortion services: a systematic review and meta‐analysis for the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence – new clinical guidelines for England. Hum Reprod Update 2020;26:886–903. - PubMed
    1. WHO Global Observatory for eHealth . Telemedicine: Opportunities and Developments in Member States: Report on the Second Global Survey on eHealth. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.

Publication types