Outcomes and Safety of History-Based Screening for Medication Abortion: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study.

Importance: Screening for medication abortion eligibility typically includes ultrasonography or pelvic examination. To reduce physical contact during the COVID-19 pandemic, many clinicians stopped requiring tests before medication abortion and instead screened patients for pregnancy duration and ectopic pregnancy risk by history alone. However, few US-based studies have been conducted on the outcomes and safety of this novel model of care. Objective: To evaluate the outcomes and safety of a history-based screening, no-test approach to medication abortion care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients obtaining a medication abortion without preabortion ultrasonography or pelvic examination between February 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, at 14 independent, Planned Parenthood, academic-affiliated, and online-only clinics throughout the US. Exposures: Medications for abortion provided without preabortion ultrasonography or pelvic examination and dispensed to patients in person or by mail. Main Outcomes and Measures: Effectiveness, defined as complete abortion after 200 µg of mifepristone and up to 1600 µg of misoprostol without additional intervention, and major abortion-related adverse events, defined as hospital admission, major surgery, or blood transfusion. Results: The study included data on 3779 patients with eligible abortions. The study participants were racially and ethnically diverse and included 870 (23.0%) Black patients, 533 (14.1%) Latinx/Hispanic patients, 1623 (42.9%) White patients, and 327 (8.7%) who identified as multiracial or with other racial or ethnic groups. For most (2626 [69.5%]), it was their first medication abortion. Patients lived in 34 states, and 2785 (73.7%) lived in urban areas. In 2511 (66.4%) abortions, the medications were dispensed in person; in the other 1268 (33.6%), they were mailed to the patient. Follow-up data were obtained for 2825 abortions (74.8%), and multiple imputation was used to account for missing data. Across the sample, 12 abortions (0.54%; 95% CI, 0.18%-0.90%) were followed by major abortion-related adverse events, and 4 patients (0.22%; 95% CI, 0.00%-0.45%) were treated for ectopic pregnancies. Follow-up identified 9 (0.40%; 95% CI, 0.00%-0.84%) patients who had pregnancy durations of greater than 70 days on the date the mifepristone was dispensed that were not identified at screening. The adjusted effectiveness rate was 94.8% (95% CI, 93.6%-95.9%). Effectiveness was similar when medications were dispensed in person (95.4%; 95% CI, 94.1%-96.7%) or mailed (93.3%; 95% CI, 90.7%-95.9%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, screening for medication abortion eligibility by history alone was effective and safe with either in-person dispensing or mailing of medications, resulting in outcomes similar to published rates of models involving ultrasonography or pelvic examination. This approach may facilitate more equitable access to this essential service by increasing the types of clinicians and locations offering abortion care.

Abortion service availability during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from a national census of abortion facilities in the U.S.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the impact of COVID-19 on abortion services in all 50 United States states and the District of Columbia. STUDY DESIGN: ANSIRH's Abortion Facility Database is a systematic collection of data on all publicly-advertising abortion facilities in the United States, updated annually through online searches and mystery shopper phone calls. Research staff updated the database in May-August 2020, assessing the number of facilities that closed, limited or stopped providing abortions, and provided telehealth options in summer 2020 due to COVID-19.  We describe these changes using frequencies and highlighting themes and examples from coded qualitative data. RESULTS: Located primarily in the South and Midwest, 24 of 751 facilities that were open in 2019 temporarily closed due to the pandemic, with 9 still closed by August 2020. Other facilities described suspending abortions, referring abortion patients to other facilities, or limiting services to medication abortion. While most facilities required in-person visits for reasons like state abortion restrictions, 22% (n = 150) offered phone or telehealth consultations, no-test visits, or medication abortion by mail to reduce or eliminate patient time in the clinic. Some facilities used creative strategies to reduce COVID-19 risk like allowing patients to wait for visits in their cars or offering drive-through medication pick-up. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic caused several disruptions to abortion service availability, including closures. To reduce in-person visit time, some clinics shifted to offering medication abortion (versus procedural) or telehealth. While the pandemic and abortion restrictions increased barriers to abortion provision, facilities were resilient and adapted to provide safe care for their patients. IMPLICATIONS: Barriers to abortion access were exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in areas of the country with more restrictive policies toward abortion. Telehealth care protocols offered by many abortion facilities provide an option to reduce or eliminate in-person visits.

Adoption of no-test and telehealth medication abortion care among independent abortion providers in response to COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Access to abortion care in the United States (US) is restricted by numerous logistical and financial barriers, which have been further intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to understand the ways in which COVID-19 prompted changes in clinical practices in abortion care among independent abortion clinics. STUDY DESIGN: We surveyed independent US abortion clinics and documented changes in practice regarding the provision of abortion since March 1, 2020. RESULTS: Among about 153 independent clinics invited, 100 clinics contributed relevant data and were included in the analytic sample. A total of 87% reported changes in protocols in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Reported changes included moving to telehealth (phone or video) for follow-up (71%), starting or increasing telehealth for patient consultations and screening (41%), reducing Rh testing (43%) and other tests (42%), and omitting the preabortion ultrasound (15%). A total of 20% reported allowing quick pickup of medication abortion pills, and 4% began mailing medications directly to patients after a telehealth consultation. Clinical practice changes were reported throughout all regions of the US, but facilities in the Northeast (73%) were more likely to report starting or increasing telehealth than facilities in the South (23%, p < .001). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated use of telehealth among independent abortion clinics, but many clinics, particularly those in the South, have been unable to make these changes. Other practices such as reducing preabortion ultrasounds were less common in all regions despite clinical guidelines and evidence supporting such changes in practice and positive benefits for public health and patient-centered care. IMPLICATIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has created a window of opportunity to remove barriers to abortion, including expanding telehealth and reducing preabortion tests. Clinics can strive for a culture shift towards simplifying the provision of medication abortion and routinely avoiding preabortion tests and in-person visits. Such changes in practice could have positive benefits for public health and patient-centered care.

Using online technologies to improve diversity and inclusion in cognitive interviews with young people.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the feasibility of using multiple technologies to recruit and conduct cognitive interviews among young people across the United States to test items measuring sexual and reproductive empowerment. We sought to understand whether these methods could achieve a diverse sample of participants. With more researchers turning to approaches that maintain social distancing in the context of COVID-19, it has become more pressing to refine these remote research methods. METHODS: We used several online sites to recruit for and conduct cognitive testing of survey items. To recruit potential participants we advertised the study on the free online bulletin board, Craigslist, and the free online social network, Reddit. Interested participants completed an online Qualtrics screening form. To maximize diversity, we purposefully selected individuals to invite for participation. We used the video meeting platform, Zoom, to conduct the cognitive interviews. The interviewer opened a document with the items to be tested, shared the screen with the participant, and gave them control of the mouse and keyboard. After the participant self-administered the survey, the interviewer asked about interpretation and comprehension. After completion of the interviews we sent participants a follow-up survey about their impressions of the research methods and technologies used. We describe the processes, the advantages and disadvantages, and offer recommendations for researchers. RESULTS: We recruited and interviewed 30 young people from a range of regions, gender identities, sexual orientations, ages, education, and experiences with sexual activity. These methods allowed us to recruit a purposefully selected diverse sample in terms of race/ethnicity and region. It also may have offered potential participants a feeling of safety and anonymity leading to greater participation from gay, lesbian, and transgender people who would not have agreed to participate in-person. Conducting the interviews using video chat may also have facilitated the inclusion of individuals who would not volunteer for in-person meetings. Disadvantages of video interviewing included participant challenges to finding a private space for the interview and problems with electronic devices. CONCLUSIONS: Online technologies can be used to achieve a diverse sample of research participants, contributing to research findings that better respond to young people's unique identities and situations.