Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 12 de 12
Filtrar
4.
Sex Reprod Health Matters ; 29(2): 1920566, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1254261

RESUMEN

India has the world's fastest growing outbreak of COVID-19. With limited mobility, increased reports of intimate partner violence, changes in living patterns of migrants, delays in accessing contraception and safe abortion care, and potential changes to decisions about parenting, there may be an increased need for abortion services in India due to the pandemic. The use of technology for providing abortion information and services has been well documented in global literature. The safety of abortion provision using telehealth has been established in several contexts including the United States and Australia. The importance of hotlines and other support systems that use technology to provide information and support to clients through their abortion is also highlighted in the literature. Several countries, such as the United Kingdom, France, New Zealand, and Pakistan are now allowing the use of technology for abortion/post-abortion care in light of the pandemic; however, India's telemedicine guidelines do not include abortion. In a country where the majority of abortions take place outside the health system, allowing the use of telemedicine for abortion can help bring legality to users, and expand access to those facing additional barriers in accessing the care they deserve. We outline models for telemedicine provision of abortion in India and discuss the regulatory changes required to make telehealth for abortion a reality in India.


Asunto(s)
Aborto Inducido/métodos , Aborto Inducido/normas , Guías como Asunto , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud , Telemedicina/métodos , Telemedicina/normas , Aborto Inducido/legislación & jurisprudencia , COVID-19/prevención & control , Femenino , Humanos , India/epidemiología , Embarazo , SARS-CoV-2 , Telemedicina/legislación & jurisprudencia
5.
Contraception ; 104(1): 111-116, 2021 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1209123

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to characterize the combined impact of federal, state, and institutional policies on barriers to expanding medication and telemedicine abortion care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic in the abortion-restrictive states of Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed 4 state policies, 2 COVID-related state executive orders, and clinic-level survey data on medication abortion provision from fourteen abortion facilities in Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia from December 2019 to December 2020. We calculated the percent of medication abortions provided at these facilities during the study period by state, to assess changes in medication abortion use during the pandemic. RESULTS: We ascertained that COVID-19-executive orders in Ohio and West Virginia that limited procedural abortion in Spring 2020 coincided with an increase in the overall number and proportion of medication abortions in this region, peaking at 1613 medication abortions (70%) in April 2020. Ohio and West Virginia, which had executive orders limiting procedural abortion, saw relatively greater increases in April compared to Kentucky. Despite temporary lifting of the mifepristone REMS, prepandemic regulations banning telemedicine abortion in Kentucky and West Virginia and requiring in-person clinic visits for medication abortion distribution in Ohio limited clinics' ability to adapt to offer medication abortion by mail. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings illustrate how restrictive medication and telemedicine abortion policies in Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia created additional obstacles for patients seeking medication abortion during the pandemic. Permanently lifting federal regulations on in-clinic distribution of mifepristone would only advantage abortion seekers in states without restrictive telehealth and medication abortion policies. State policies that limit access to comprehensive abortion services should be central in larger efforts toward dismantling barriers that impinge upon reproductive autonomy. IMPLICATION STATEMENT: We find that abolishing the REMS on mifepristone would not be enough to expand access to patients in abortion-restrictive states with telemedicine and medication abortion laws. While the REMS is a barrier, it represents one of several hindrances to the expansion of telemedicine abortion distribution across the United States.


Asunto(s)
Abortivos/uso terapéutico , Aborto Inducido/legislación & jurisprudencia , COVID-19 , Servicios Postales , Telemedicina/legislación & jurisprudencia , Aborto Inducido/métodos , Control de Medicamentos y Narcóticos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Electivos , Gobierno Federal , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud , Humanos , Kentucky , Ohio , Política Pública , Evaluación y Mitigación de Riesgos , SARS-CoV-2 , Gobierno Estatal , Telemedicina/organización & administración , West Virginia
7.
Health Policy ; 125(1): 17-21, 2021 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-947227

RESUMEN

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated the rapid implementation of telemedical health services. In the United Kingdom, one service that has benefitted from this response is the provision of early medical abortion. England, Wales, and Scotland have all issued approval orders to this effect. These orders allow women to terminate pregnancies up to certain gestational limits, removing the need for them to contravene social distancing measures to access care. However, they are intended only as temporary measures for the duration of the pandemic response. In this paper, we chart these developments and further demonstrate the already acknowledged politicisation of abortion care. We focus on two key elements of the orders: (1) the addition of updated clinical guidance in the Scottish order that suggests an extended gestational limit, and (2) sunset clauses in the English and Welsh orders, as well as an indication of similar intentions in Scotland. In discussing these two issues, we suggest that the refusal of UK governments to introduce telemedical provision of early medical abortion previously has not been based on health concerns. Further, we question whether it would be appropriate for the approval orders to be lifted following the pandemic, suggesting that to do so would represent regressive and harmful policy.


Asunto(s)
Aborto Inducido/legislación & jurisprudencia , COVID-19 , Telemedicina/legislación & jurisprudencia , Aborto Legal/legislación & jurisprudencia , Femenino , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud , Humanos , Embarazo , Reino Unido
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA