Self-diagnosing the end of pregnancy after medication abortion.

This qualitative study conducted between November 2020 and March 2021 in the US state of Mississippi examines the experiences of 25 people who obtained medication abortion at the state's only abortion facility. We conducted in-depth interviews with participants after their abortions until concept saturation was reached, and then analysed the content using inductive and deductive analysis. We assessed how people use embodied knowledge about their individual physical experiences such as pregnancy symptoms, a missed period, bleeding, and visual examinations of pregnancy tissue to identify the beginning and end of pregnancy. We compared this to how people use biomedical knowledge such as pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and clinical examinations to confirm their self-diagnoses. We found that most people felt confident that they could identify the beginning and end of pregnancy through embodied knowledge, especially when combined with the use of home pregnancy tests that confirmed their symptoms, experiences, and visual evidence. All participants concerned about symptoms sought follow-up care at a medical facility, whereas people who felt confident of the successful end of the pregnancy did so less often. These findings have implications for settings of restricted abortion access that have limited options for follow-up care after medication abortion.

Reasons for participation in abortion research in restrictive settings.

OBJECTIVES: Following the implementation of a restrictive abortion law in Texas (Senate Bill 8), we conducted in-depth interviews with pregnant people about their experiences seeking abortion care. In this analysis, we explore participants' motivations for taking part in a research study. STUDY DESIGN: Between October 2021 and August 2022, we conducted 120 in-depth interviews with Texans (aged ≥15 years) who, after considering abortion, had a facility-based abortion, self-managed their abortion, experienced miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, or continued their pregnancy. We asked all interviewees, "Why did you decide to participate in the interview?" For analysis, we used inductive and deductive coding approaches to explore motivations for and concerns about participation. RESULTS: Most commonly, interviewees appreciated the opportunity to share their stories, frequently describing how their experiences highlight the nuance of abortion decision-making and challenge stigmatized views about abortion. Some described an emotional benefit of participating, as they had no one else to whom to disclose their experience without judgment. Many hoped to help others by participating, saying that access to other people's stories would have helped them feel less isolated. Relatedly, many viewed their participation as an opportunity to speak out against restrictive policies that caused them harm, hardship, and distress. Interviewees seldom cited the monetary incentive alone as motivation for participation. A few expressed concerns about participating out of fear of legal repercussions for others involved in their abortion process (e.g., ride-share driver). These themes were consistent across pregnancy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Research volunteers are motivated to participate for altruistic and self-benefiting reasons. IMPLICATIONS: This study provides insights into what people seeking abortion consider when deciding to participate in qualitative research. Research ethics committees evaluating and researchers conducting abortion research should weigh these motivations, perceived benefits, and concerns. Policies that enhance protections for participant data are needed to support knowledge generation from abortion research.

Abortion Clients' Perceptions of Alternative Medication Abortion Service Delivery Options in Mississippi.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed Mississippi abortion clients' perceptions of alternative medication abortion service delivery options that were restricted under state law but available elsewhere. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with medication abortion clients between November 2020 and March 2021 at Mississippi's only abortion facility. We described alternative service delivery models: telemedicine, medications by mail, and follow-up care in their community versus returning to the facility. We asked if participants would be interested in using any of these models, if available, and how use of each model would have changed their abortion experience. We used thematic analysis, organizing codes into common themes based on participants' preferences and concerns for each option. RESULTS: Of the 25 participants interviewed, nearly all (n = 22) expressed interest in at least one option and reported that, had they been available, these would have alleviated cost, travel, and childcare barriers. Many believed these options would further ensure privacy, but a minority thought abortion was too sensitive for telemedicine or were concerned about mailing errors. Participants not interested in the alternative options also feared missing valued aspects of face-to-face care. Most did not return to the facility for follow-up (n = 19), citing financial and logistical barriers. Largely, participants were not interested in obtaining follow-up care in their community, citing concerns about provider judgment, stigma, and privacy. CONCLUSIONS: Mississippi abortion clients were interested in models that would make abortion care more convenient while ensuring their privacy and allowing for meaningful client-provider interaction. These features of care should guide the development of strategies aimed at helping those in restricted settings, such as Mississippi, to overcome barriers to abortion care following the implementation of abortion bans in many states following the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

Travel for abortion care: implications for clinical practice.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Traveling long distances to obtain abortion care due to restrictions and scarce availability is associated with significant obstacles. We review clinical strategies that can facilitate abortion access and outline considerations to ensure person-centered and equitable care. RECENT FINDINGS: Establishing a patient's gestational duration prior to travel may be beneficial to ensure they are eligible for their desired abortion method at the preferred facility or to determine if a multiday procedure is required. If a local ultrasound cannot be obtained prior to travel, evidence demonstrates people can generally estimate their gestational duration accurately. If unable to provide care, clinicians should make timely referrals for abortion. Integration of telemedicine into abortion care is safe and well regarded by patients and should be implemented into service delivery where possible to reduce obstacles to care. Routine in-person follow-up care is not necessary. However, for those who want reassurance, formalized pathways to care should be established to ensure people have access to care in their community. To further minimize travel-related burdens, facilities should routinely offer information about funding and practical support, emotional support, and legal resources. SUMMARY: There are many opportunities to optimize clinical practice to support those traveling for abortion care.

Abortion Access and Medically Complex Pregnancies Before and After Texas Senate Bill 8.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how Texas health care professionals who care for patients experiencing medically complex pregnancies navigate abortion restrictions. METHODS: We conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with health care professionals across Texas who cared for patients with life-limiting fetal diagnoses or who had existing or developed health conditions that adversely affected pregnancy. We conducted the first round of interviews March-June 2021 and the second round of interviews January-May 2022 after the implementation of Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which prohibited most abortions after detection of embryonic cardiac activity. We used inductive and deductive qualitative analysis to identify themes and changes in practice after the implementation of SB8. RESULTS: We conducted a total of 50 interviews: 25 before implementation of SB8 and 25 after the law's implementation. We interviewed 21 maternal-fetal medicine specialists, 19 obstetrician-gynecologists, eight physicians whose primary practice is the provision of abortion care, and two genetic counselors. Participants reported presenting their patients with information about health risks and outcomes of continued pregnancy in each policy period; however, counseling on these options was curtailed after implementation of SB8. Even in cases in which a patient's health and, in some cases, life would be compromised, narrow criteria for abortions at hospitals limited care before implementation of SB8, and criteria often became more stringent after implementation of SB8. Administrative approval processes and referrals for abortion delayed care and endangered patients' health, which worsened after in-state options were eliminated after implementation of SB8. Participants noted that patients with more limited resources who were unable to travel out of state often had to continue pregnancies, further increasing their risk of morbidity. CONCLUSION: Texas health care professionals' abilities to provide evidence-based abortion care to patients with medically complex pregnancies were constrained by institutional policies, and care options narrowed further after implementation of SB8. Abortion restrictions limit shared decision making, compromise patient care, and put pregnant people's health at risk.

Interest in advance provision of abortion pills: a national survey of potential users in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: To assess interest in clinician-administered advance provision of abortion pills among potential users in the USA. METHODS: Using social media advertisements, we recruited people living in the USA who were aged 18-45 years and assigned female at birth, who were not pregnant or planning pregnancy, for an online survey on reproductive health experiences and attitudes. We explored interest in advance provision of abortion pills, participant characteristics, including demographics and pregnancy history, contraceptive use, abortion knowledge and comfort, and healthcare system distrust. We used descriptive statistics to assess interest in advance provision, and ordinal regression modelling to evaluate differences in interest controlling for age, pregnancy history, contraceptive use, familiarity and comfort with medication abortion, and healthcare system distrust, reporting adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: From January-February 2022, we recruited 634 diverse respondents from 48 states, among whom 65% were interested, 12% neutral, and 23% disinterested in advance provision. There were no differences among interest groups by US region, race/ethnicity, or income. In the model, variables associated with interest included being aged 18-24 years (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.4) versus 35-45 years, using a tier 1 (permanent or long-acting reversible) or tier 2 (short-acting hormonal) contraceptive method (aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.1, and aOR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2 to 3.9, respectively) versus no contraception, being familiar or comfortable with the medication abortion process (aOR 4.2, 95% CI 2.8 to 6.2, and aOR 17.1, 95% CI 10.0 to 29.0, respectively), and having high healthcare system distrust (aOR 2.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 4.4) versus low distrust. CONCLUSION: As abortion access becomes more constrained, strategies are needed to ensure timely access. Advance provision is of interest to the majority of those surveyed and warrants further policy and logistical exploration.

Abortion-client religious identity and self-judgment in a setting with antiabortion protestors in Mississippi.

OBJECTIVE: To assess abortion patients' self-judgment in a setting with antiabortion protestors. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed data from a survey of 196 Mississippi abortion clients who interacted with antiabortion protestors, using ANOVA to compare feelings of self-judgment (measured on a 0-to-4 Likert-based scale) by religious identity. We assessed support for a law limiting protestor activity using a Χ2 test. RESULTS: The mean self-judgment score was 1.1 among respondents with no religious identity (n = 43), 1.4 among religious, not evangelical respondents (n = 95), and 1.5 among evangelical respondents (n = 58, p = 0.23). Most respondents (79%) supported a lawlimiting protestor activity. DISCUSSION: Overall, self-judgment was low and support for a law limiting protestor access was high.

Publicly Funded Family Planning Organizations' Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Texas.

INTRODUCTION: After the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of family planning services decreased, but there are limited data on how safety net providers were affected. METHODS: Between November 2020 and March 2021, we conducted in-depth interviews with administrators at health departments, federally qualified health centers, and specialized family planning organizations across Texas about pandemic-related changes in family planning services. We analyzed interview transcripts using an inductive thematic approach. RESULTS: Administrators at the 19 participating organizations described pervasive service disruptions. Some organizations closed for 6-8 weeks at the pandemic's onset owing to safety uncertainties and difficulty interpreting Texas' March 2020 executive order prohibiting "nonessential" medical services; others later suspended services after staff exposures. Health departments and federally qualified health centers commonly decreased family planning services to focus on COVID-19 response, leaving specialized family planning organizations to absorb displaced reproductive health care clients. Some of the advantages of service delivery modifications-including telehealth, curbside and drive-through prescription pickup, and medication by mail-were difficult to realize; barriers included low reimbursement, necessary patient examinations, and clients' confidentiality concerns and lack of technological resources. CONCLUSIONS: Texas' diverse network of family planning organizations illustrated a range of responses to the pandemic, and organizations often focused on their core missions-public health, primary care, or family planning.

Lactogenesis and breastfeeding after immediate vs delayed birth-hospitalization insertion of etonogestrel contraceptive implant: a noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Initiating a progestin-based contraceptive before the drop in progesterone required to start lactogenesis stage II could theoretically affect lactation. Previous studies have shown that initiating progestin-based contraception in the postnatal period before birth-hospitalization discharge has no detrimental effects on breastfeeding initiation or continuation compared with outpatient interval initiation. However, there are currently no breastfeeding data on the impact of initiating the etonogestrel contraceptive implant in the early postnatal period immediately in the delivery room. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the effect of delivery room vs delayed birth-hospitalization contraceptive etonogestrel implant insertion on breastfeeding outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This was a noninferiority randomized controlled trial to determine if time to lactogenesis stage II (initiation of copious milk secretion) differs by timing of etonogestrel implant insertion during the birth-hospitalization. We randomly assigned pregnant people to insertion at 0 to 2 hours (delivery room) vs 24 to 48 hours (delayed) postdelivery. Participants intended to breastfeed, desired a contraceptive implant for postpartum contraception, were fluent in English or Spanish, and had no allergy or contraindication to the etonogestrel implant. We collected demographic information and breastfeeding intentions at enrollment. Onset of lactogenesis stage II was assessed daily using a validated tool. The noninferiority margin for the mean difference in time to lactogenesis stage II was defined as 12 hours in a per-protocol analysis. Additional electronic surveys collected data on breastfeeding and contraceptive continuation at 2 and 4 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: We enrolled and randomized 95 participants; 77 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (n=38 in the delivery room group and n=39 in the delayed group) after excluding 18 because of withdrawing consent, changing contraceptive or breastfeeding plans, or failing to provide primary outcome data. A total of 69 participants were included in the as-treated analysis (n=35 delivery room, n=34 delayed); 8 participants who received the etonogestrel implant outside the protocol windows were excluded, and 2 participants from the delivery room group received the etonogestrel implant at 24 to 48 hours and were analyzed with the delayed group. Participants were similar between groups in age, gestational age, and previous breastfeeding experience. Delivery room insertion was noninferior to delayed birth-hospitalization insertion in time to lactogenesis stage II (delivery room [mean±standard deviation], 65±25 hours; delayed, 73±61 hours; mean difference, -9 hours; 95% confidence interval, -27 to 10). Onset of lactogenesis stage II by postpartum day 3 was not significantly different between the groups. Lactation failure occurred in 5.5% (n=2) participants in the delayed group. Ongoing breastfeeding rates did not differ between the groups, with decreasing rates of any/exclusive breastfeeding over the first postpartum year. Most people continued to use the implant at 12 months, which did not differ by group. CONCLUSION: Delivery room insertion of the contraceptive etonogestrel implant does not delay the onset of lactogenesis when compared with initiation later in the birth-hospitalization and therefore should be offered routinely as part of person-centered postpartum contraceptive counseling, regardless of breastfeeding intentions.

Service delivery at Title X sites in Texas during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONTEXT: The important role of Title X sites in supporting publicly funded reproductive healthcare was elevated during the COVID-19 pandemic, as many people experienced economic uncertainty and changed their fertility preferences. In this study, we assessed changes in service delivery during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic at Title X-supported sites in Texas, a large state with a high uninsured rate and a diverse Title X network. METHODS: Using surveys of Title X-funded organizations in Texas from April and November 2020, we examined the percentage of organizations reporting service modifications. With administrative data on 507,947 client encounters between March 2019 and March 2021, we assessed change in client volume at the onset of the pandemic and evaluated the association between regional COVID-19 case rates and the provision of key Title X services. RESULTS: In April 2020, most organizations (78%) limited in-person operations while implementing telehealth (74%) and contactless contraception (67%). Network-wide encounter volume declined by 26% at pandemic onset (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.65, 0.84). Health departments experienced the steepest declines in encounter volume (IRR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.36-0.50). Weekly encounters, particularly for long-acting reversible method placement/removal and sexually transmitted infection testing, decreased as COVID-19 rates increased. CONCLUSIONS: Investment in public health infrastructure, including providing robust support to health departments as well as rebuilding and expanding the Title X network, is essential to safeguarding access to publicly funded reproductive healthcare during and after the pandemic.

Association of Texas' 2021 Ban on Abortion in Early Pregnancy With the Number of Facility-Based Abortions in Texas and Surrounding States.

Importance: Texas' 2021 ban on abortion in early pregnancy may demonstrate how patterns of abortion might change following the US Supreme Court's June 2022 decision overturning Roe v Wade. Objective: To assess changes in the number of abortions and changes in the percentage of out-of-state abortions among Texas residents performed at 12 or more weeks of gestation in the first 6 months following implementation of Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), which prohibited abortions after detection of embryonic cardiac activity. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective study of a sample of 50 Texas and out-of-state abortion facilities using an interrupted time series analysis to assess changes in the number of abortions, and Poisson regression to assess changes in abortions at 12 or more weeks of gestation. Data included 68 820 Texas facility-based abortions and 11 287 out-of-state abortions among Texas residents during the study period from September 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022. Exposures: Abortion care obtained after (September 2021-February 2022) vs before (September 2020-August 2021) implementation of SB 8. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were changes in the number of facility-based abortions for Texas residents, in Texas and out of state, in the month after implementation of SB 8 compared with the month before. The secondary outcome was the change in the percentage of out-of-state abortions among Texas residents obtained at 12 or more weeks of gestation during the 6-month period after the law's implementation. Results: Between September 2020 and August 2021, there were 55 018 abortions in Texas and 2547 out-of-state abortions among Texas residents. During the 6 months after SB 8, there were 13 802 abortions in Texas and 8740 out-of-state abortions among Texas residents. Compared with the month before implementation of SB 8, the number of Texas facility-based abortions significantly decreased from 5451 to 2169 (difference, -3282 [95% CI, -3171 to -3396]; incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.43 [95% CI, 0.36-0.51]) in the month after SB 8 was implemented. The number of out-of-state abortions among Texas residents significantly increased from 222 to 1332 (difference, 1110 [95% CI, 1047-1177]; IRR, 5.38 [95% CI, 4.19-6.91]). Overall, the total documented number of Texas facility-based and out-of-state abortions among Texas residents significantly decreased from 5673 to 3501 (absolute change, -2172 [95% CI, -2083 to -2265]; IRR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.56-0.79]) in the first month after SB 8 was implemented compared with the previous month. Out-of-state abortions among Texas residents obtained at 12 or more weeks of gestation increased from 17.1% (221/1291) to 31.0% (399/1289) (difference, 178 [95% CI, 153-206]) during the period between September 2021 and February 2022 (P < .001 for trend). Conclusions and Relevance: Among a sample of abortion facilities, the 2021 Texas law banning abortion in early pregnancy (SB 8) was significantly associated with a decrease in the documented total of facility-based abortions in Texas and obtained by Texas residents in surrounding states in the first month after implementation compared with the previous month. Over the 6 months following SB 8 implementation, the percentage of out-of-state abortions among Texas residents obtained at 12 or more weeks of gestation significantly increased.

Update on medication abortion follow-up options: many sizes to fit all.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To assess the efficacy, benefits, and limitations of available and emerging follow-up options for medication abortion. RECENT FINDINGS: Medication abortion follow-up does not have to be a 'one size fits all' protocol. From most to least invasive, follow-up options include facility-based ultrasound, laboratory-based repeat serum beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) testing, urine hCG testing (high sensitivity, low sensitivity, and multilevel pregnancy tests), self-assessment with symptom evaluation, and no intervention. Provider or facility-dependent follow-up, including ultrasound and serum testing are effective, but have several limitations, including needing to return to a facility and cost. Remote, client-led follow-up options, such as urine pregnancy testing and symptoms evaluation, are well tolerated and effective for ruling out the rare outcome of ongoing pregnancy after medication abortion and have several advantages. Advantages include being inexpensive and flexible. However, it is important to note that low-sensitivity and multilevel pregnancy tests are not available in all settings. In studies evaluating client-led follow-up with urine pregnancy tests, ongoing pregnancies were identified over half the time with symptoms alone. SUMMARY: Guidelines from several professional organizations have aligned with the evidence and no longer recommend routine office-based follow-up. To ensure care is person-centered, providers should offer follow-up options that align with the comfort, logistical ability, and values of the client.

Potential candidate for oral pericoital contraception: evaluating ulipristal acetate plus cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor for ovulation disruption.

BACKGROUND: There remains considerable global unmet contraceptive need, with almost 200 million women reporting desire to limit or space childbearing without contraceptive use. Researchers have documented worldwide interest in an oral, on-demand contraceptive option were it available. Candidates for use include ulipristal acetate (UA), levonorgestrel and cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors alone or in combination. METHODS: We performed an exploratory, prospective study of matched menstrual cycles: one baseline cycle and one treatment cycle of UA 30 mg plus meloxicam 30 mg just prior to ovulation. The primary outcome was ovulation disruption, defined as unruptured dominant follicle for 5 days. Secondary outcomes included comparing cycle length, endometrial stripe thickness, and side effects. RESULTS: Nine participants completed all study procedures in both cycles. Ovulatory disruption occurred in 66.7% (n=6) of treatment cycles and all but one demonstrated features of ovulatory dysfunction. Cycle length (mean±SD) was longer in the treatment cycle (31.9±4.0 vs 28.6±3.5 days, p<0.01). Secondary outcomes did not differ between the two cycles. CONCLUSIONS: UA plus the COX-2 inhibitor meloxicam disrupts ovulation at peak luteal surge and is a promising candidate for evaluation as a pericoital oral contraceptive. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03354117.

Use of a contraceptive decision support tool in the abortion care setting.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of a contraceptive decision support tool in the abortion care setting. STUDY DESIGN: In 2019, Mississippi residents aged 18 to 45 used a tablet-based decision support tool at the consultation visit and completed a survey about their satisfaction with the tool. RESULTS: Among the 325 participants, the majority found the tool "very helpful" for method decision-making (86%) and considered the amount of information provided to be "just right" (95%). Nearly all (98%) reported it was acceptable to get contraception information at their visit. CONCLUSIONS: Decision support tools are a promising, person-centered strategy to support postabortion contraceptive information needs.

Dysmenorrhoea as a risk factor for pain with intrauterine device insertion.

BACKGROUND: Understanding predictors of pain with gynaecological procedures may facilitate individualised counselling and pain management. We aimed to study the effect of dysmenorrhoea on intrauterine device (IUD) insertion pain. METHODS: This was a planned secondary analysis of a randomised trial evaluating self-administered lidocaine gel versus placebo for IUD insertion pain. We included those participants who reported menses in the past 3 months. We assessed dysmenorrhoea (in the past 3 months) and procedural pain using a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). We categorised dysmenorrhoea as none/mild (<40 mm), moderate (40-69 mm) or severe (≥70 mm). We assessed participant pain scores at speculum insertion, tenaculum placement, IUD insertion, and overall. We compared median procedural pain scores by dysmenorrhoea group with three-way and post hoc pairwise analyses. RESULTS: We analysed 188 participants. Demographic characteristics were similar among the three dysmenorrhoea groups. Pairwise comparisons revealed higher median procedural pain scores in the severe dysmenorrhoea group compared with the none/mild dysmenorrhoea group at speculum insertion (25 mm vs 8 mm; p=0.007), tenaculum placement (51 mm vs 31 mm; p=0.04) and IUD insertion (74 mm vs 61 mm; p=0.04). Overall pain did not differ among the three groups (p=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe dysmenorrhoea experienced increased pain with all aspects of IUD insertion, including speculum and tenaculum placement, compared with those with only mild or no dysmenorrhoea. Clinicians may consider this finding when providing individualised counselling and pain management for patients undergoing IUD insertion and other gynaecological procedures. Larger studies are needed to validate the effect of dysmenorrhoea severity on pain throughout IUD insertion.

Leveraging the Client-Provider Interaction to Address Contraceptive Discontinuation: A Scoping Review of the Evidence That Links Them.

Despite considerable investment and effort, unmet need for contraception remains an obstacle to improved family planning outcomes. One influencing factor is the frequency of contraceptive discontinuation among users who desire to prevent pregnancy, often due to method-related concerns and side effects. Contraceptive users have the right to be supported during counseling to voluntarily choose methods that align with their individual needs and preferences. Contraceptive counseling, as a key component of quality of care, is particularly important for providers to reduce unmet need among their clients. This scoping review examined the state of the evidence on contraceptive counseling and its impact on discontinuation. The review first examines the association between quality of care and contraceptive discontinuation, then looks to what the current body of evidence suggests are women's contraceptive counseling priorities, and lastly, explores whether specific counseling tools and approaches have been evaluated with discontinuation as an outcome. The results identified general principles and priorities for good counseling including person-centeredness, client-tailored information exchange, clear and concise information on side effects and bleeding changes, reducing providers' implicit and explicit biases, and trust and respect between the client and provider. The review of the literature also found that evidence to support the use of specific counseling tools and approaches to reduce contraceptive discontinuation is insufficient; research should be designed to determine which specific elements of the client-provider interaction can be improved to significantly impact contraceptive discontinuation. This evidence could inform how the global community of practice might improve and leverage specific counseling approaches and tools to address the most common predictors of discontinuation.

A Comparison of Paracervical Block Volumes Before Osmotic Dilator Placement: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a 12-mL paracervical block is noninferior to a 20-mL block in reducing pain with osmotic dilator insertion. METHODS: In this single-blinded noninferiority trial, we randomized individuals undergoing insertion of osmotic dilators before second-trimester abortion to receive either a 12-mL or 20-mL 1% lidocaine paracervical block. The primary outcome was pain immediately after insertion of osmotic dilators. Prespecified secondary outcomes included pain with paracervical block administration, overall pain, and side effects, with 88 participants being required for a noninferiority margin of 15 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale assuming an SD of 28. We analyzed data using Wilcoxon rank sum, χ2, and t tests and performed analysis of variance to account for repeated measures. Secondary analysis included multivariable regression to explore potential confounders. RESULTS: From January 2018 to October 2020, of 232 eligible individuals, 174 were approached and 96 randomized (48 participants to each group); 91 were available for analysis (45: 12 mL, 46: 20 mL). Group demographics were similar, with a mean gestation of 21 weeks and four osmotic dilators placed. The 12-mL paracervical block was noninferior to the 20-mL paracervical block for pain with osmotic dilator insertion with a difference in means of -1.36 (95% CI -12.56 to 9.85) favoring 12 mL. Median pain scores after dilator placement were 47 mm (interquartile range 22-68) and 50 mm (interquartile range 27-67) in 12-mL compared with 20-mL paracervical block, respectively (P=.81). No difference was seen in median pain at baseline, with paracervical block administration, postprocedure or with overall pain or experience. At least one lidocaine-related side effect occurred in 4% of participants in the 12-mL group compared with 13% for those receiving 20 mL (P=.15), with metallic taste, ringing in ears, and lightheadedness being most common. CONCLUSION: A 12-mL paracervical block is noninferior to a 20-mL block for pain reduction with osmotic dilator insertion. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03356145.

Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Pain Management of Aspiration Abortion up to 83 Days of Gestation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate high-frequency, high-intensity transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) as an inexpensive, noninvasive pain management approach for first-trimester aspiration abortion. METHODS: We conducted a noninferiority, single-blind, randomized controlled trial of patients seeking aspiration abortion at up to 83 days of gestation. Participants received TENS (placed posteriorly, T10-L1 and S2-S4) or intravenous (IV) sedation (fentanyl, midazolam). The primary outcome was pain with aspiration, as self-reported by visual analog scale (VAS, 100 mm). To detect at least a 15 mm mean difference on the 100 mm VAS with 90% power and a significance level of .05, a total of 90 participants were required. RESULTS: Between January 2018 and October 2019, we enrolled 109 participants (55 TENS, 54 IV). Participant median gestation was 53 days (range 36-82) in the TENS group and 58 days (range 35-82) in the IV group (P=.65). Group demographics and clinical histories were similar. Intention-to-treat analysis (n=109) yielded noninferior results for the primary outcome (mean difference 4.8 mm, 95% CI -5.9 to 13.5 mm). In the per-protocol analysis, 9 (16%) in the TENS group were excluded after receiving IV sedation; 100 participants were included (46 TENS, 54 IV). Median (range) reported VAS for aspiration was 73 mm (13-97) and 66 mm (0-99) in the TENS and IV groups, respectively (P=.40). With a mean difference of 4.4 mm (95% CI -5.6 to 14.5 mm), we found TENS to be noninferior to IV. Physicians underestimated participant pain, perceiving pain to be 34 mm (6-91) in the TENS group and 25 mm (0-83) in the IV group (P=.003). CONCLUSION: We found TENS to be a noninferior alternative to IV sedation for aspiration pain during first-trimester abortion. Expanding pain management options can improve quality of and access to abortion. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation could be a standalone or adjunct approach for abortion pain management for those without access to or are ineligible to receive IV sedation due to the lack of sedation practitioner, designated driver, or local restrictions. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03187002.