Medical abortion in primary care

BackgroundDespite the availability of medical abortifacients, and their potential use in primary care, only a small proportion of primary healthcare professionals provide medical abortion services. Understanding the perspectives of primary care providers on delivering medical abortion is pertinent to identifying barriers to medical abortion service provision and increasing access for women globally.ObjectiveTo understand the knowledge, attitudes and practices of primary healthcare providers regarding medical abortion services.DesignFour databases (Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus) were searched using search terms related to medical abortion and primary care. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools were used to appraise the methodological quality of studies included.ResultsSome 22 studies were identified, conducted across 15 countries, comprising 6072 participants. Study participants comprised doctors and residents (n=8), nurses and nursing students (n=5), and pharmacists (n=3) and six studies were conducted with mixed samples of providers. Medical abortion was deemed acceptable by some doctors, but fear of criminal prosecution, in countries where abortion is still restrictive, left doctors and nurses circumspect about providing medical abortion. Pharmacists referred women to other providers with only a small proportion dispensing medical abortifacients. General practitioners, nurses and trainees had mixed knowledge of medical abortion and emphasised the need for training on delivery of medical abortion and dissemination of guidelines. Conversely, pharmacists reported poor knowledge regarding medical abortion regimens and complications.ConclusionsIncreased dissemination of training and resources is pertinent to supporting primary care providers delivering medical abortion services and to increasing access for women on a global scale.

Download Full-text

Early medical abortion services provided in Australian primary care

The Medical Journal of Australia ◽

10.5694/mja2.51275 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Asvini K Subasinghe ◽

Kevin McGeechan ◽

Jessica E Moulton ◽

Luke E Grzeskowiak ◽

Danielle Mazza

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Medical Abortion

Download Full-text

Implementation of mifepristone medical abortion in Canada: pilot and feasibility testing of a survey to assess facilitators and barriers

Pilot and Feasibility Studies ◽

10.1186/s40814-019-0520-8 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Courtney Devane ◽

Regina M. Renner ◽

Sarah Munro ◽

Édith Guilbert ◽

Sheila Dunn ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Health System ◽

Diffusion Of Innovations ◽

Scale Up ◽

Medical Abortion ◽

First Trimester ◽

Validated Questionnaire ◽

Barriers To Implementation ◽

Facilitators And Barriers ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background Direct primary care provision of first-trimester medical abortion could potentially address inequitable abortion access in Canada. However, when Health Canada approved the combination medication Mifegymiso® (mifepristone 200 mg/misoprostol 800 mcg) for medical abortion in July 2015, we hypothesized that the restrictions to distribution, prescribing, and dispensing would impede the uptake of this evidence-based innovation in primary care. We developed and pilot-tested a survey related to policy and practice facilitators and barriers to assess successful initiation and ongoing clinical provision of medical abortion service by physicians undertaking mifepristone training. Additionally, we explored expert, stakeholder, and physician perceptions of the impact of facilitators and barriers on abortion services throughout Canada. Methods In phase 1, we developed a survey using 2 theoretical frameworks: Greenhalgh’s conceptual model for the Diffusion of Innovations in health service organizations (which we operationalized) and Godin’s framework to assess the impact of professional development on the uptake of new practices operationalized in Légaré’s validated questionnaire. We finalized questions in phase 2 using the modified Delphi methodology. The survey was then tested by an expert panel of 25 nationally representative physician participants and 4 clinical content experts. Qualitative analysis of transcripts enriched and validated the content by identifying these potential barriers: physicians dispensing the medication, mandatory training to become a prescriber, burdens for patients, lack of remuneration for mifepristone provision, and services available in my community. To assess the usability and reliability of the online survey, in phase 3, we pilot-tested the survey for feasibility. Results We developed and tested a 61-item Mifepristone Implementation Survey suitable to study the facilitators and barriers to implementation of mifepristone first-trimester medical abortion practice by physicians in Canada. Conclusions Our team operationalized Greenhalgh’s theoretical framework for Diffusion of Innovations in health systems to explore factors influencing the implementation of first-trimester medical abortion provision. This process may be useful for those evaluating other health system innovations. Identification of facilitators and barriers to implementation of mifepristone practice in Canada and knowledge translation has the potential to inform regulatory and health system changes to support and scale up facilitators and mitigate barriers to equitable medical abortion provision.

Download Full-text

Fool’s Gold: Psychologists Using Disingenuous Reasoning to Mislead Legislatures into Granting Psychologists Prescriptive Authority

American Journal of Law & Medicine ◽

10.1017/s0098858800002586 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 29 (4) ◽

pp. 489-524

Author(s):

Brent Pollitt

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Mental Illness ◽

Nurse Practitioners ◽

Primary Care Physicians ◽

American Psychological Association ◽

The United States ◽

Psychotropic Medications ◽

American Psychological ◽

Training Requirements ◽

Prescriptive Authority

Mental illness is a serious problem in the United States. Based on “current epidemiological estimates, at least one in five people has a diagnosable mental disorder during the course of a year.” Fortunately, many of these disorders respond positively to psychotropic medications. While psychiatrists write some of the prescriptions for psychotropic medications, primary care physicians write more of them. State legislatures, seeking to expand patient access to pharmacological treatment, granted physician assistants and nurse practitioners prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications. Over the past decade other groups have gained some form of prescriptive authority. Currently, psychologists comprise the primary group seeking prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications.The American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy (“ASAP”), a division of the American Psychological Association (“APA”), spearheads the drive for psychologists to gain prescriptive authority. The American Psychological Association offers five main reasons why legislatures should grant psychologists this privilege: 1) psychologists’ education and clinical training better qualify them to diagnose and treat mental illness in comparison with primary care physicians; 2) the Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration Project (“PDP”) demonstrated non-physician psychologists can prescribe psychotropic medications safely; 3) the recommended post-doctoral training requirements adequately prepare psychologists to prescribe safely psychotropic medications; 4) this privilege will increase availability of mental healthcare services, especially in rural areas; and 5) this privilege will result in an overall reduction in medical expenses, because patients will visit only one healthcare provider instead of two–one for psychotherapy and one for medication.

Download Full-text