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
. 2025 Jul 10;51(3):221-231.
doi: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202302.

Home use of mifepristone for medical abortion: a systematic review

Affiliations

Home use of mifepristone for medical abortion: a systematic review

Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson et al. BMJ Sex Reprod Health. .

Abstract

Background: In many countries, persons seeking medical abortion with mifepristone followed by misoprostol can self-administer the second drug, misoprostol, at home, but self-administration of the first drug, mifepristone, is not allowed to the same extent.

Objectives: This systematic review aims to evaluate whether the efficacy, safety and women's satisfaction with abortion treatment are affected when mifepristone is self-administered at home instead of in a clinic.

Search strategy: A literature search covered CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE and APA PsycInfo in October 2022.

Selection criteria: Eligible studies focused on persons undergoing medical abortion comparing home and in-clinic mifepristone intake. Outcomes included abortion effectiveness, compliance, acceptability, and practical consequences for women.

Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias. Meta-analysis included similar studies while those differing in design were synthesised without meta-analysis.

Results: Six studies (54 233 women) of medical abortions up to 10 weeks were included. One randomised controlled trial and one retrospective register study had moderate risk of bias, and four non-randomised clinical trials where women could choose the place for intake of mifepristone had serious risk of bias. There was no difference in abortion effectiveness (high confidence) or compliance (moderate confidence) between mifepristone administered at home or in-clinic. No differences in complications were detected between groups and most women who chose home administration of mifepristone expressed a preference for this approach.

Conclusions: Our systematic review demonstrates that the effectiveness of medical abortion is comparable regardless of mifepristone administration and intake, at home or in the clinic.

Keywords: Abortifacient Agents; Mifepristone; abortion.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: KGD has received honorarium for lectures or advice on abortion and contraception on ad hoc basis for Organon, Bayer, Gedeon Richter, Exelgyn, Mithra, Exeltis, Medincell, HRA Pharma, Cirqle, Natural cycles, Obseva, Norgene, and Ferring. IL has received compensation from Gedeon Richter and Exeltis for lectures in hormonal contraception and participation in an Advisory Board. JB has received honorariums for giving lectures in hormonal contraception for Organon, Campus Pharma, Exeltis and Gedeon Richter. SJ, AC, KM and EW have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flowchart presenting the selection process after the literature search.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Meta-analyses of studies comparing the proportion of women with (a) complete abortion, (b) incomplete abortion, and (c) ongoing pregnancy when mifepristone is administered at home or at a clinic. Differences presented as absolute risks. NRCT, non-randomised clinical trial; RCT, randomised controlled trial.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Proportion of women taking mifepristone at home compared with at a clinic who made (a) unplanned phone calls to the clinic or (b) unplanned visits to healthcare providers. NRCT, non-randomised clinical trial; RCT, randomised controlled trial.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. WHO . Abortion Care Guideline. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO); 2022. - PubMed
    1. Oppegaard KS, Qvigstad E, Fiala C, et al. Clinical follow-up compared with self-assessment of outcome after medical abortion: a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385:698–704. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61054-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ngo TD, Park MH, Shakur H, et al. Comparative effectiveness, safety and acceptability of medical abortion at home and in a clinic: a systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2011;89:360–70. doi: 10.2471/BLT.10.084046. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gambir K, Kim C, Necastro KA, et al. Self-administered versus provider-administered medical abortion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;3:CD013181. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013181.pub2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Endler M, Lavelanet A, Cleeve A, et al. Telemedicine for medical abortion: a systematic review. BJOG. 2019;126:1094–102. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15684. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types