Comparison of Early Pregnancy Loss Management Between States With Restrictive and Supportive Abortion Policies
- PMID: 36379879
- DOI: 10.1016/j.whi.2022.10.001
Comparison of Early Pregnancy Loss Management Between States With Restrictive and Supportive Abortion Policies
Abstract
Introduction: Mifepristone-misoprostol and office uterine aspiration used for abortion care are also evidence-based, cost-effective strategies for early pregnancy loss management. We aimed to compare the provision of mifepristone-misoprostol and office uterine aspiration for early pregnancy loss between states with restrictive and supportive abortion policies.
Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, internet-based survey regarding early pregnancy loss management among obstetrician-gynecologists (OBGYNs) at academic medical centers. We assessed management offered along with facilitators and barriers to implementation of mifepristone-misoprostol and office uterine aspiration. We used χ2 and multivariable logistic regression to compare practice patterns.
Results: We analyzed responses from 350 physicians, 56% from states with restrictive abortion policies. OBGYNs in states with restrictive abortion policies were less likely than those in states with supportive abortion policies to offer both mifepristone-misoprostol and office uterine aspiration (33.2% vs. 51.3%; p = .001), to report having received induced abortion training (67.3% vs. 89.6%; p < .001), and to report perceived institutional support for abortion care (49.0% vs. 85.0%; p < .001). After adjusting for confounders, restrictive state policy was no longer associated with providing both mifepristone-misoprostol and office uterine aspiration for early pregnancy loss (adjusted odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-2.45). However both prior induced abortion training and institutional support for abortion care remained significantly associated (adjusted odds ratio, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.07-3.97 and adjusted odds ratio, 3.91; 95% CI, 2.08-7.38, respectively).
Conclusions: OBGYNs practicing in states with restrictive abortion policies are less likely than those in states with supportive abortion policies to have received abortion training or perceive institutional support for abortion care, and they are less likely to offer mifepristone-misoprostol and office uterine aspiration for early pregnancy loss.
Copyright © 2022 Jacobs Institute of Women's Health, George Washington University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Management of early pregnancy loss among obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts and barriers to mifepristone use.Contraception. 2023 Oct;126:110108. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2023.110108. Epub 2023 Jun 30. Contraception. 2023. PMID: 37394110
-
The association between abortion restrictions and patient-centered care for early pregnancy loss at US obstetrics-gynecology residency programs.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Jul;229(1):41.e1-41.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.03.038. Epub 2023 Mar 30. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023. PMID: 37003363
-
Medical management of early pregnancy loss is cost-effective compared with office uterine aspiration.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Nov;227(5):737.e1-737.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.06.054. Epub 2022 Jun 30. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022. PMID: 35780811 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Comparison of vaginal and buccal misoprostol after mifepristone for medication abortion through 70 days of gestation: A retrospective chart review.Contraception. 2022 Nov;115:62-66. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2022.06.012. Epub 2022 Jun 28. Contraception. 2022. PMID: 35772525 Review.
-
[Misoprostol: off-label use in the first trimester of pregnancy (spontaneous abortion, and voluntary medical termination of pregnancy)].J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2014 Feb;43(2):123-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jgyn.2013.11.007. Epub 2014 Jan 13. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2014. PMID: 24433988 Review. French.
Cited by
-
Management of early pregnancy loss by reproductive endocrinologists: does access to mifepristone matter?F S Rep. 2024 May 22;5(3):252-258. doi: 10.1016/j.xfre.2024.05.005. eCollection 2024 Sep. F S Rep. 2024. PMID: 39381661 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical