Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Special Statement: Telemedicine in obstetrics-quality and safety considerations.

The frequency of telemedicine encounters has increased dramatically in recent years. This review summarizes the literature regarding the safety and quality of telemedicine for pregnancy-related services, including prenatal care, postpartum care, diabetes mellitus management, medication abortion, lactation support, hypertension management, genetic counseling, ultrasound examination, contraception, and mental health services. For many of these, telemedicine has several potential or proven benefits, including expanded patient access, improved patient satisfaction, decreased disparities in care delivery, and health outcomes at least comparable to those of traditional in-person encounters. Considering these benefits, it is suggested that payers should reimburse providers at least as much for telemedicine as for in-person services. Areas for future research are considered.

An examination of loss to follow-up and potential bias in outcome ascertainment in a study of direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To examine associations between factors associated with loss to follow-up and effectiveness in the TelAbortion project, which provided medication abortion by direct-to-patient telemedicine and mail in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: The study population for this descriptive analysis included abortions among participants enrolled in the TelAbortion study with data present in a web-based database tool from November 2018 to September 2021 who were mailed a medication package. The analysis included information on abortions across nine sites. In this analysis, we used generalized estimating equations to examine factors associated with loss to follow-up and effectiveness. RESULTS: Of the 1831 abortions included in this analysis, 1553 (84.8%) were classified as having complete follow-up and 278 (15.2%) were classified as lost to follow-up. In a multivariable analysis, factors significantly associated with loss to follow-up included history of medical abortion, education, gestational age, study site, and whether the TelAbortion was performed pre- or post-COVID-19 onset (p < 0.05). The rate of treatment failure (i.e., abortions resulting in continuing pregnancy or uterine evacuation) reported in this study was 5.1%. The only covariate associated with both loss to follow-up and treatment failure was higher gestational age. However, using gestational age to impute missing abortion outcomes did not substantially change the estimated failure rate. CONCLUSIONS: Abortions that were lost to follow-up differed substantially from those with complete follow-up, which could bias the effectiveness estimate. However, imputing outcomes based on available and appropriate pretreatment data did not substantially affect the estimate. This finding is encouraging, although it does not exclude the possibility of bias due to unmeasured factors. IMPLICATIONS: Significant differences between abortion cases with complete follow-up and those lost to follow-up provide insights into abortion cases that may be at a higher risk for being lost. The low treatment failure rate indicates that the telemedicine provision of medication abortion is effective.

Decreasing reproductive and abortion care barriers: findings on the student health center's role from a student survey.

BACKGROUND: College-aged young adults in the US have low utilization and high need for reproductive healthcare. Multiple barriers to reproductive care exist. University Student Health Centers (SHCs) provide varying degrees of reproductive products and services. Recently, California legislated that public university SHCs add medication abortion to their care. METHODS: To examine existing attitudes and barriers to reproductive healthcare for public university students, we conducted an anonymous online survey at a large, diverse, urban coastal California State University. Students were asked about numerous barriers accessing reproductive services in general and at the SHC, which we categorized into three groups: stigma, access and system. Respondents were also asked about knowledge and preferences for accessing and recommending various services. To understand the extent to which inequities exist, we compared differences across racialized/ethnic identity, gender identity, anticipated degree, and living distance from campus using chi-squared tests. RESULTS: The majority of survey (n = 273) respondents experienced stigma and access barriers in general healthcare settings which made obtaining reproductive healthcare for themselves or their partners difficult (stigma barriers 55%; 95% CI 49%-61%; access barriers 68%; 95% CI 62-73%). Notably, students reported statistically significant lower rates of access barriers at the SHC, 50%, than in general reproductive healthcare settings, 68%. There were limited differences by student demographics. Students also reported a high willingness to use or recommend the SHC for pregnancy tests (73%; 95% CI 67-78%), emergency contraception pills (72%; 95% CI 66-78%) and medication abortion (60%; 95% CI 54-66%). Students were less likely to know where to access medication abortion compared to other services, suggesting unmet need. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence that students face barriers accessing reproductive healthcare and that SHCs are a trusted and accessible source of this care. SHCs have a key role in increasing health, academic and gender equity in the post-Roe era. Attention and financial support must be paid to SHCs to ensure success as state legislatures mandate them to expand reproductive and abortion care access.

History and Politics of Medication Abortion in the United States and the Rise of Telemedicine and Self-Managed Abortion.

This article examines the decades-long campaign to increase access to abortion pills in the United States, including advocates' work to win U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of mifepristone and misoprostol for abortion, the continuing restrictions on mifepristone and the multiple strategies advocates have pursued to challenge these restrictions, including lobbying the FDA to remove the restrictions, obtaining a limited research exemption from FDA restrictions and suing the FDA during the COVID pandemic. The article pays particular attention to influence of research conducted on the safety and efficacy of medication abortion as well as research on the impact of increased availability of abortion pills through telemedicine during the pandemic. The article also addresses self-managed abortion, where people obtain and use mifepristone and/or misoprostol outside of the formal healthcare system, and documents the growing network of organizations providing logistical, medical and legal support for people self-managing abortion. The article concludes with reflections on the role abortion pills might play in the post-Roe era amid increasingly divergent abortion access trends across different regions of the United States.

Remote Delivery in Reproductive Health Care: Operation of Direct-to-Patient Telehealth Medication Abortion Services in Diverse Settings.

PURPOSE: Established models of reproductive health service delivery were disrupted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study examines rapid innovation of remote abortion service operations across health care settings and describes the use of telehealth consultations with medications delivered directly to patients. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 clinical staff from 4 practice settings: family planning clinics, online medical services, and primary care practices-independent or within multispecialty health systems. Clinicians and administrators described their telehealth abortion services. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. Staff roles, policies, and procedures were compared across practice settings. RESULTS: Across all practice settings, telehealth abortion services consisted of 5 operational steps: patient engagement, care consultations, payment, medication dispensing, and follow-up communication. Online services and independent primary care practices used asynchronous methods to determine eligibility and complete consultations, resulting in more efficient services (2-5 minutes), while family planning and health system clinics used synchronous video encounters requiring 10-30 minutes of clinician time. Family planning and health system primary care clinics mailed medications from clinic stock or internal pharmacies, while independent primary care practices and online services often used mail-order pharmacies. Online services offered patients asynchronous follow-up; other practice settings scheduled synchronous appointments. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid innovations implemented in response to disrupted in-person reproductive health care included remote medication abortion services with telehealth assessment/follow-up and mailed medications. Though consistent operational steps were identified across health care settings, variation allowed for adaptation of services to individual sites. Understanding remote abortion service operations may facilitate dissemination of a range of patient-centered reproductive health services.Annals "Online First" article.

A qualitative exploration of how the COVID-19 pandemic shaped experiences of self-managed medication abortion with accompaniment group support in Argentina, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Venezuela.

Globally, people self-manage their medication abortions without clinical assistance. Feminist activist collectives (accompaniment groups) support people through self-managed abortion with evidence-based guidance. We sought to understand the impact of COVID-19 and related restrictions on the need for and experiences of self-managed abortion with accompaniment support across varied legal and social contexts. Between May and October 2020, we conducted in-depth interviews with individuals who self-managed abortions with support from accompaniment groups during the pandemic in Argentina, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Venezuela. We conducted a thematic analysis to understand the impact of COVID-19 on participants' experiences with accompanied self-managed abortions. Across 43 in-depth interviews, participants in all four countries described how the COVID-19 pandemic created challenges at each step of their abortion process, from confirming the pregnancy, accessing abortion pills, finding a private, comfortable place, and verifying abortion completion. For most people, conditions related to the pandemic made it harder to self-manage an abortion; for a minority, being at home made aspects of the experience somewhat easier. Nonetheless, all participants reported feeling supported by accompaniment groups, and COVID-19 and related lockdowns reinforced their preference for accompaniment-supported self-managed abortion. These findings highlight the essential role that accompaniment groups play in ensuring access to high-quality abortion care in a multiplicity of settings, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Efforts are needed to expand the reach of accompaniment groups to increase access to the high-quality abortion support they provide, filling a critical gap left by health systems and legal infrastructure.

Addressing Structural Inequities, a Necessary Step Toward Ensuring Equitable Access to Telehealth for Medication Abortion Care During and Post COVID-19.

Telehealth, one of the newest health innovations, has been promoted as a tool to enhance access to health care services in ways that center patient needs. However, integrating telehealth within an inequitable health system undermines its potential. This perspective highlights policies and practices that foster structural inequities and names their impact on the use and acceptability of telehealth for medication abortion among specific communities of color. Communities of color have a higher prevalence of abortion use but face many barriers, including financial and geographic barriers, to abortion access. Preliminary evidence on telehealth for medication abortion shows that it is highly acceptable, accommodating of patient needs, and may allow patients to access abortion care at earlier gestational ages. However, evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic shows that utilization of telehealth is lower among communities of color. We describe how systemic barriers, including regulations on or laws banning telehealth for medication abortion, disinvestments in digital access, and restrictions on public insurance coverage, could perpetuate lower utilization of telehealth for medication abortion care among communities of color. We call for systems changes that will remove these barriers and make this health care innovation available to all who may desire it.

Impact of COVID-19 on abortion method under ten weeks gestational age in Southern California.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the proportion of medication versus suction aspiration abortions before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in a health system that did not limit access to abortion. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis among patients having an abortion at 10 weeks gestation or less at Planned Parenthood health centers in San Diego, Imperial, and Riverside Counties in California. Centers required in-person follow up for medication abortion throughout the pandemic. We compared the nine months prior to the pandemic (June 2019 to February 2020) to the first nine months of the pandemic (April 2020 to December 2020), with March 2020 as a washout period. RESULTS: There was an average monthly increase of 0.78% in the proportion of medication abortions from June 2019 to February 2020 (p = 0.01, pre-pandemic trend). Immediately following the start of the pandemic, there was an estimated increase in the proportion of medication abortions of 2.58% (p = 0.23, post-level change). However, the monthly pre-pandemic trend towards medication abortions reversed by 1.07% after the start of the pandemic (p = 0.02, post-trend change), for an average monthly decrease in the proportion of medication abortions of 0.29% from April to December 2020 (p = 0.37, pandemic trend). CONCLUSIONS: The trend towards medication abortions that was present before the COVID-19 pandemic reversed after an initial increase in medication abortions at the start of the pandemic. IMPLICATIONS: Both types of abortion should remain available during public health emergencies. Further research is needed to understand how the pandemic affected abortion methods in areas with limited access and in health centers that did not require two in-person appointments for medication abortions.

Accuracy of self-assessment of gestational duration among people seeking abortion.

BACKGROUND: Mifepristone, used together with misoprostol, is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for medication abortion through 10 weeks' gestation. Although in-person ultrasound is frequently used to establish medication abortion eligibility, previous research demonstrates that people seeking abortion early in pregnancy can accurately self-assess gestational duration using the date of their last menstrual period. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we establish the screening performance of a broader set of questions for self-assessment of gestational duration among a sample of people seeking abortion at a wide range of gestations. STUDY DESIGN: We surveyed patients seeking abortion at 7 facilities before ultrasound and compared self-assessments of gestational duration using 11 pregnancy dating questions with measurements on ultrasound. For individual pregnancy dating questions and combined questions, we established screening performance focusing on metrics of diagnostic accuracy, defined as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity (or the proportion of ineligible participants who correctly screened as ineligible for medication abortion), and proportion of false negatives (ie, the proportion of all participants who erroneously screened as eligible for medication abortion). We tested for differences in sensitivity across individual and combined questions using McNemar's test, and for differences in accuracy using the area under the receiver operating curve and Sidak adjusted P values. RESULTS: One-quarter (25%) of 1089 participants had a gestational duration of >70 days on ultrasound. Using the date of last menstrual period alone demonstrated 83.5% sensitivity (95% confidence interval, 78.4-87.9) in identifying participants with gestational durations of >70 days on ultrasound, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.85) and a proportion of false negatives of 4.0%. A composite measure of responses to questions on number of weeks pregnant, date of last menstrual period, and date they got pregnant demonstrated 89.1% sensitivity (95% confidence interval, 84.7-92.6) and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.88), with 2.7% of false negatives. A simpler question set focused on being >10 weeks or >2 months pregnant or having missed 2 or more periods had comparable sensitivity (90.7%; 95% confidence interval, 86.6-93.9) and proportion of false negatives (2.3%), but with a slightly lower area under the receiver operating curve (0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.84). CONCLUSION: In a sample representative of people seeking abortion nationally, broadening the screening questions for assessing gestational duration beyond the date of the last menstrual period resulted in improved accuracy and sensitivity of self-assessment at the 70-day threshold for medication abortion. Ultrasound assessment for medication abortion may not be necessary, especially when requiring ultrasound could increase COVID-19 risk or healthcare costs, restrict access, or limit patient choice.

Factors associated with successful implementation of telehealth abortion in 4 United States clinical practice settings.

OBJECTIVE: To overcome obstacles to delivering medication abortion services during the COVID-19 pandemic, clinics and providers implemented new medication abortion service models not requiring in-person care. This study identifies organizational factors that promoted successful implementation of telehealth and adoption of "no test" medication abortion protocols. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted 21 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with health care providers and clinic administrators implementing clinician-supported telehealth abortion during the COVID pandemic. We selected 15 clinical sites to represent 4 different practice settings: independent primary care practices, online medical services, specialty family planning clinics, and primary care clinics within multispecialty health systems. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided our thematic analysis. RESULTS: Successful implementation of telehealth abortion included access to formal and informal inter-organizational networks, including professional organizations and informal mentorship relationships with innovators in the field; organizational readiness for implementation, such as having clinic resources available for telehealth services like functional electronic health records and options for easy-to-use virtual patient-provider interactions; and motivated and effective clinic champions. CONCLUSIONS: In response to the need to offer remote clinical services, 4 different practice settings types leveraged key operational factors to facilitate successful implementation of telehealth abortion. Information from this study can inform implementation strategies to support the dissemination and adoption of this model. IMPLICATIONS: Examples of successfully implemented telehealth medication abortion services provide a framework that can be used to inform and implement similar patient-centered telehealth models in diverse practice settings.

Greasing the wheels: The impact of COVID-19 on US physician attitudes and practices regarding medication abortion.

OBJECTIVE: To explore US provider perspectives about self-sourced medication abortion and how their attitudes and clinic practices changed in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a multi-method study of survey and interview data. We performed 40 baseline interviews and surveys in spring 2019 and 36 follow-up surveys and ten interviews one year later. We compared pre- and post-Likert scale responses of provider views on the importance of different aspects of standard medication abortion assessment and evaluation (e.g., related to ultrasounds and blood-typing). We performed content analysis of the follow-up interviews using deductive-inductive analysis. RESULTS: Survey results revealed that clinics substantially changed their medication abortion protocols in response to COVID-19, with more than half increasing their gestational age limits and introducing telemedicine for follow-up of a medication abortion. Interview analysis suggested that physicians were more supportive of self-sourced medication abortion in response to changing clinic protocols that decreased in-clinic assessment and evaluation for medication abortion, and as a result of physicians' altered assessments of risk in the context of COVID-19. Having evidence already in place that supported these practice changes made the implementation of new protocols more efficient, while working in a state with restrictive abortion policies thwarted the flexibility of clinics to adapt to changes in standards of care. CONCLUSION: This exploratory study reveals that the COVID-19 pandemic has altered clinical assessment of risk and has shifted practice towards a less medicalized model. Further work to facilitate person-centered abortion information and care can build on initial modifications in response to the pandemic. IMPLICATIONS: COVID-19 has shifted clinician perception of risk and has catalyzed a change in clinical protocols for medication abortion. However, state laws and policies that regulate medication abortion limit physician ability to respond to changes in risk assessment.

Family medicine provision of online medication abortion in three US states during COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To examine provision of direct-to-patient medication abortion during COVID-19 by United States family physicians through a clinician-supported, asynchronous online service, Aid Access. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed data from United States residents in New Jersey, New York, and Washington who requested medication abortion from 3 family physicians using the online service from Aid Access between April and November 2020. This study seeks to examine individual characteristics, motivations, and geographic locations of patients receiving abortion care through the Aid Access platform. RESULTS: Over 7 months, three family physicians using the Aid Access platform provided medication abortion care to 534 residents of New Jersey, New York, and Washington. There were no demographic differences between patients seeking care in these states. A high percentage (85%) were less than 7 weeks gestation at the time of their request for care. The reasons patients chose Aid Access for abortion services were similar regardless of state residence. The majority (71%) of Aid Access users lived in urban areas. Each family physician provided care to most counties in their respective states. Among those who received services in the three states, almost one-quarter (24%) lived in high Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) counties, with roughly one-third living in medium-high SVI counties (33%), followed by another quarter (26%) living in medium-low SVI counties. CONCLUSIONS: Family physicians successfully provided medication abortion in three states using asynchronous online consultations and medications mailed directly to patients. IMPLICATIONS: Primary care patients are requesting direct-to-patient first trimester abortion services online. By providing abortion care online, a single provider can serve the entire state, thus greatly increasing geographic access to medication abortion.

"It was close enough, but it wasn't close enough": A qualitative exploration of the impact of direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion on access to abortion care.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how obtaining a medication abortion by mail with telemedicine counseling versus traditional in-clinic care impacted participants' access to care. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative study with semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals who completed a medication abortion by mail through the TelAbortion study. We asked participants how they learned about telemedicine abortion, reasons for choosing it, what their alternative would have been, and about their experience. We transcribed, coded, and performed qualitative content analysis of the interviews and are presenting a subset of themes related to access to care when the restrictions on clinic dispensing of mifepristone are removed. RESULTS: We interviewed 45 people from January to July 2020. Direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion was more convenient and accessible than in-clinic abortion care when considering the burdens of travel, clinic availability, logistics, and cost that were associated with in-clinic abortion. Stigma led to a prioritization of privacy, and by going to a clinic, participants feared a loss of privacy whereas obtaining a medication abortion by mail made it easier to maintain confidentiality. Faced with these barriers, 13% of participants stated they would have continued their pregnancy if TelAbortion had not been an option. Participants found direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion to be acceptable and recommended it to others. Benefits of telemedicine were amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns around infection exposure with in-clinic care. CONCLUSION: Going to a clinic was a burden for participants, to the point where some would not have otherwise been able to get an abortion. Medication abortion by mail with telemedicine counseling was a highly acceptable alternative. IMPLICATIONS: Medication abortion by mail can increase access to abortion with the added benefits of increased perceived privacy and decreased logistical burdens. Removing the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone would allow direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion to be implemented outside of a research setting without compromising the patient experience.

Abortion exceptionalism and the mifepristone REMS.

Since its initial approval, mifepristone has been regulated with a strictness out of proportion to its risks. This paper explores how the regulation of mifepristone, specifically the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) requirements, are a manifestation of abortion exceptionalism-the phenomenon of abortion being treated differently under the law than other comparable health care. The weight of medical and public health evidence demonstrates that mifepristone is extremely safe and the REMS are unnecessary. In fact, the mifepristone REMS is neither justified by the absolute risk of the medication itself, nor comprehensible as a logical response to the risks actually posed by mifepristone. Nevertheless, the REMS remain in place. From July 2020 through January 2021, enforcement of the REMS elements requiring in-person distribution of mifepristone were enjoined by court order due the COVID-19 pandemic. In other words, COVID-19 created a context so exceptional as to temporarily outweigh abortion exceptionalism. However, the reprieve did not last-in January 2021, the Supreme Court ruled to dissolve the injunction, allowing FDA to resume enforcement of the in-person requirements. In response, advocates called on the incoming Biden administration to direct FDA to suspend enforcement once more. This regulatory whiplash is itself further evidence that the REMS flow from political, rather than scientific, concerns. Abortion exceptionalism is apparent in the specific requirements of the REMS, and it is also apparent in the precarity of the regulatory scheme itself.

Perspectives of internal medicine physicians regarding medication abortion provision in the primary care setting.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand medication abortion attitudes and interest in future provision among Internal Medicine primary care providers (IM PCPs), and to characterize barriers to provision. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a survey with IM attendings and trainees at a large academic medical center in Western Pennsylvania. We used descriptive statistics to characterize attitudes towards medication abortion provision, including the belief that it is within their scope of practice and interest in future provision, and to explore perceived barriers to provision. We used logistic regression models to assess factors associated with each of these attitudes. RESULTS: Of 397 eligible attendings and trainees, 121 (30%) completed the survey. Among those surveyed, 44% believed medication abortion is within the scope of practice of IM PCPs with trainees and female-identifying providers being significantly more likely to believe medication abortion is within their scope of practice compared to attending physicians and male physicians (60% vs 30%, p < 0.01 and 53% vs 31%, p = 0.01, respectively). Similarly, 43% endorsed interest in future provision, with trainees (67% vs 23%, p < 0.001) and female providers (54% vs 27%, p = 0.002) being more likely to express interest. The most cited barriers to provision included limited training in residency (70%) and low familiarity with abortion medications (57%). CONCLUSIONS: Many IM providers- particularly trainees- believe medication abortion is within their scope of practice and would like to provide this care. Interventions are needed to provide education and assistance complying with state and federal regulations to enable safe and efficient medication abortion provision by IM providers. IMPLICATIONS: IM departments and residency programs should seek to ensure training is offered to clinicians interested in providing medication abortion as a part of their primary care practice.

Changes to medication abortion clinical practices in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To document medication abortion clinical practice changes adopted by providers in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal descriptive study, comprised of three online surveys conducted between April to December, 2020. We recruited sites from email lists of national abortion and family planning organizations. RESULTS: Seventy-four sites opted to participate. We analyzed 55/74 sites (74%) that provided medication abortion and completed all three surveys. The total number of abortion encounters reported by the sites remained consistent throughout the study period, though medication abortion encounters increased while first-trimester aspiration abortion encounters decreased. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, sites reduced the number of in-person visits associated with medication abortion and confirmation of successful termination. In February 2020, considered prepandemic, 39/55 sites (71%) required 2 or more patient visits for a medication abortion. By April 2020, 19/55 sites (35%) reported reducing the total number of in-person visits associated with a medication abortion. As of October 2020, 37 sites indicated newly adopting a practice of offering medication abortion follow-up with no in-person visits. CONCLUSIONS: Sites quickly adopted protocols incorporating practices that are well-supported in the literature, including forgoing Rh-testing and pre-abortion ultrasound in some circumstances and relying on patient report of symptoms or home pregnancy tests to confirm successful completion of medication abortion. Importantly, these practices reduce face-to-face interactions and the opportunity for virus transmission. Sustaining these changes even after the public health crisis is over may increase patient access to abortion, and these impacts should be evaluated in future research. IMPLICATIONS STATEMENT: Medication abortion serves a critical function in maintaining access to abortion when there are limitations to in-person clinic visits. Sites throughout the country successfully and quickly adopted protocols that reduced visits associated with the abortion, reducing in-person screenings, relying on telehealth, and implementing remote follow-up.

Provision of medication abortion in Hawai'i during COVID-19: Practical experience with multiple care delivery models.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the effectiveness of medication abortion with the implementation of telemedicine and a no-test protocol in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who had a medication abortion up to 77 days gestation at the University of Hawai'i between April and November 2020. Patients had the option of traditional in clinic care or telemedicine with either in clinic pickup or mailing of medications. During this time, a no-test protocol for medication abortion without prior labs or ultrasound was in place for eligible patients. The primary outcome was the rate of successful medication abortion without surgical intervention. Secondary outcomes included abortion-related complications. RESULTS: A total of 334 patients were dispensed mifepristone and misoprostol, 149 (44.6%) with telemedicine with in-person pickup of medications, 75 (22.5%) via telemedicine with medications mailed, and 110 (32.9%) via traditional in person visits. The overall rate of complete medication abortion without surgical intervention was 95.8%, with success rates of 96.8, 97.1, and 93.6% for the clinic pickup, mail, and clinic visit groups, respectively. Success for those without an ultrasound performed prior to the procedure was 96.6%, compared to 95.5% for those with ultrasound. We obtained follow-up data for 87.8% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: Medication abortion was safe and effective while offering multiple modes of care delivery including telemedicine visits without an ultrasound performed prior to dispensing medications. IMPLICATIONS: Incorporating telemedicine and a no-test protocol for medication abortion is safe and has the potential to expand access to abortion care. All care models had low rates of adverse events, which contradicts the idea that the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategyincreases the safety of medication abortion.

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.