Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Effectiveness, safety and acceptability of no-test medical abortion provided via telemedicine: a national cohort study

View ORCID ProfileAbigail Aiken, View ORCID ProfilePatricia A Lohr, View ORCID ProfileJonathan Lord, Nabanita Ghosh, View ORCID ProfileJennifer Starling
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.06.20244921
Abigail Aiken
1Associate Professor of Public Affairs, LBJ School of Public Affairs University of Texas at Austin,
MD, MPH, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Abigail Aiken
  • For correspondence: araa2@utexas.edu
Patricia A Lohr
2Medical Director, British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Stratford upon Avon, CV37 9BF,
MD MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Patricia A Lohr
  • For correspondence: patricia.lohr@bpas.org
Jonathan Lord
3Medical Director, MSI Reproductive Choices. Consultant gynaecologist., 1 Conway Street, Fitzroy Square, London W1T 6LP
MD FRCOG
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jonathan Lord
  • For correspondence: J.lord@exeter.ac.uk
Nabanita Ghosh
4Medical Director, National Unplanned Pregnancy Advisory Service (NUPAS),
FRCOG
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: nghosh@nhs.net
Jennifer Starling
5Statistician, Mathematica Policy Research, Cambridge, MA, 02139,
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jennifer Starling
  • For correspondence: jstarling@mathematica-mpr.com
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Objectives To compare the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of medical abortion before and after the introduction of no-test telemedicine abortion care.

Design Cohort study to assess whether a no-test telemedicine-hybrid care model (telemedicine with in-person provision only when indicated) was non-inferior to the traditional service model (blanket in-person provision including ultrasound scan).

Setting The three main abortion providers in England and Wales.

Participants All patients having an early medical abortion in the two months before and after the service model change. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were compared between the cohorts to adjust for any systematic differences in the two groups.

Access waiting time, gestation at abortion

Effectiveness the proportion of successful medical abortions

Safety significant adverse events defined as: haemorrhage requiring transfusion, significant infection requiring hospital admission, major surgery, death. We also examined the incidence of ectopic pregnancy and late gestation.

Acceptability Patient-reported outcomes of satisfaction, future preference, and privacy of consultation

Results The study sample included 52,142 medical abortions; 22,158 in the traditional cohort and 29,984 in the telemedicine-hybrid cohort, of which 61% were provided using no-test telemedicine. The cohorts accounted for 85% of all medical abortions provided in England and Wales during the study period. Mean waiting times were 4.2 days shorter in the telemedicine-hybrid cohort, and 40% were provided at ≤6 weeks’ gestation compared to 25% in the traditional cohort (p<0.001). There was no difference in success rates between the two groups (98.2% vs. 98.8%, p=1.0), nor in the prevalence of serious adverse events (0.04% vs. 0.02%, p=0.557). The incidence of ectopic pregnancy was equivalent in both cohorts (0.2%, p=0.796), with no significant difference in the proportions being treated after abortion (0.01% vs 0.03%, p=0.123). In 0.04% of cases the abortion appeared to have been provided at over 10 weeks’ gestation; these abortions were all completed at home without additional medical complications. In the telemedicine-hybrid group, the effectiveness for abortions conducted using telemedicine (n=18,435) was higher than for those conducted in-person (n=11,549), 99.2% vs. 98.1%, p<0.001. Acceptability was high (96% satisfied), 80% reported a future preference for telemedicine and none reported that they were unable to consult in private using teleconsultation.

Conclusions Medical abortion provided through a hybrid model that includes no-test telemedicine without routine ultrasound is effective, safe, acceptable, and improves access to care.

What is already known on this topic The UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) conducted a systematic review and recommended using telemedicine to improve access to medical abortion care.

Several models for using telemedicine to facilitate medical abortion have been described, but most existing trials are small, and many required attendances to have medicines administered or for an ultrasound scan or blood tests.

What this study adds This study (n=52,142) is the first to assess a real-world no-test telemedicine abortion care pathway in a national population. The new national model demonstrates how a permissive framework for medical abortion can deliver significant quality improvements to those needing to access abortion care. There was no difference in effectiveness (p=1.0) or safety (p=0.6) when compared to a traditional in-person model, but the no-test telemedicine pathway improved access to care, was highly acceptable to patients and is likely to be especially beneficial for vulnerable groups and in resource-poor settings.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Clinical Protocols

https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/coronavirus-abortion/

https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/2020-06-04-decision-aid-for-early-medical-abortion-without-ultrasound.pdf

Funding Statement

None

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Texas at Austin and a determination was made that the research did not meet the criteria for human subjects research as defined in the Common Rule (45 CFR 46) or FDA Regulations (21 CFR 56).

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

The collated datasets, which include participant data with anonymised identifiers, are held by AA at the University of Texas. Consideration will be given to sharing this with bone fide researchers on application. The original data resides with the co-authors' own institutions. Although the data is de-identified, some relate to very rare events and could therefore result in identification. Therefore data on complications, and data arising from clinical incident reports, will be subject to the same access restrictions as those of the organisation supplying it.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted December 07, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effectiveness, safety and acceptability of no-test medical abortion provided via telemedicine: a national cohort study
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Effectiveness, safety and acceptability of no-test medical abortion provided via telemedicine: a national cohort study
Abigail Aiken, Patricia A Lohr, Jonathan Lord, Nabanita Ghosh, Jennifer Starling
medRxiv 2020.12.06.20244921; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.06.20244921
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Effectiveness, safety and acceptability of no-test medical abortion provided via telemedicine: a national cohort study
Abigail Aiken, Patricia A Lohr, Jonathan Lord, Nabanita Ghosh, Jennifer Starling
medRxiv 2020.12.06.20244921; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.06.20244921

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Sexual and Reproductive Health
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (280)
  • Allergy and Immunology (579)
  • Anesthesia (139)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1943)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (252)
  • Dermatology (184)
  • Emergency Medicine (333)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (697)
  • Epidemiology (11097)
  • Forensic Medicine (8)
  • Gastroenterology (622)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (3164)
  • Geriatric Medicine (308)
  • Health Economics (561)
  • Health Informatics (2041)
  • Health Policy (862)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (782)
  • Hematology (310)
  • HIV/AIDS (682)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (12713)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (707)
  • Medical Education (317)
  • Medical Ethics (92)
  • Nephrology (334)
  • Neurology (2981)
  • Nursing (164)
  • Nutrition (463)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (589)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (614)
  • Oncology (1549)
  • Ophthalmology (476)
  • Orthopedics (185)
  • Otolaryngology (266)
  • Pain Medicine (202)
  • Palliative Medicine (57)
  • Pathology (402)
  • Pediatrics (912)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (381)
  • Primary Care Research (355)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2781)
  • Public and Global Health (5588)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1091)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (631)
  • Respiratory Medicine (759)
  • Rheumatology (338)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (311)
  • Sports Medicine (289)
  • Surgery (343)
  • Toxicology (48)
  • Transplantation (159)
  • Urology (132)