Reducing the harms of unsafe abortion: a systematic review of the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of harm reduction counselling for pregnant persons seeking induced abortion

BackgroundGlobally, access to safe abortion is limited. We aimed to assess the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of harm reduction counselling for abortion, which we define as the provision of information about safe abortion methods to pregnant persons seeking abortion.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane, Global Index Medicus and the grey literature up to October 2021. We included studies in which healthcare providers gave pregnant persons information on safe use of abortifacient medications without providing the actual medications. We conducted a descriptive summary of results and a risk of bias assessment using the ROBINS-I tool. Our primary outcome was the proportion of pregnant persons who used misoprostol to induce abortion rather than other methods among those who received harm reduction counselling.ResultsWe included four observational studies with a total of 4002 participants. Most pregnant persons who received harm reduction counselling induced abortion using misoprostol (79%–100%). Serious complication rates were low (0%–1%). Uterine aspiration rates were not always reported but were in the range of 6%–22%. Patient satisfaction with the harm reduction intervention was high (85%–98%) where reported. We rated the risk of bias for all studies as high due to a lack of comparison groups and high lost to follow-up rates.DiscussionBased on a synthesis of four studies with serious methodological limitations, most recipients of harm reduction counselling use misoprostol for abortion, have low complication rates, and are satisfied with the intervention. More research is needed to determine abortion success outcomes from the harm reduction approach.FundingThis work did not receive any funding.PROSPERO registration numberWe registered the review in the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (ID number: CRD42020200849).

A qualitative study of abortion care providers’ perspectives on telemedicine medical abortion provision in the context of COVID-19

BackgroundTelemedicine for medical abortion care was rapidly introduced in Great Britain in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. A growing body of literature demonstrates that telemedicine abortion care is safe, effective and highly acceptable to patients. Less is known about the perspectives of abortion care providers (ACPs).MethodsQualitative research within the telemedicine abortion service in Lothian (Edinburgh and surrounding region), UK. We conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with ACPs between May and July 2020 (doctors, n=6; nurses, n=10) and analysed the data thematically.ResultsWe present three themes from our qualitative analysis: (1) Selective use of ultrasound – the move away from routine ultrasound for determination of gestational age was generally viewed positively. Initial anxiety about non-detection of ectopic pregnancy and later gestations was expressed by some ACPs, but concerns were addressed through clinical practice and support structures within the clinic. (2) Identifying safeguarding issues – in the absence of visual cues some ACPs reported concerns about their ability to identify safeguarding issues, specifically domestic violence. Conversely it was acknowledged that teleconsultations may improve detection of this in some situations. (3) Provision of information during the consultation – telephone consultations were considered more focused than in-person consultations and formed only part of the overall ‘package’ of information provided to patients, supplemented by online and written information.ConclusionsACPs providing telemedicine abortion care value this option for patients and believe it should remain beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Safeguarding patients and the selective use of ultrasound can be initially challenging; however, with experience, staff confidence improves.

Rhesus isoimmunisation in unsensitised RhD-negative individuals seeking abortion at less than 12 weeks’ gestation: a systematic review

AimThe aim of this review was to systematically review the outcome of routine anti-D administration among unsensitised rhesus (RhD)-negative individuals who have an abortion. This review is registered with Prospero.MethodsA search for all published and ongoing studies, without restrictions on language or publication status, was performed using the following databases from their inception: EBM Reviews Ovid - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE Ovid (Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily), Embase.com, Popline and Google Scholar. Study types included: randomised controlled trials, controlled trials, cohort and case–control studies from 1971 onwards. The population included women who undergo an abortion (induced, incomplete, spontaneous or septic abortion), medical or surgical <12 weeks, and isoimmunisation in a subsequent pregnancy. The primary outcomes were: (1) development of a positive Kleihauer–Betke test and (2) development of Rh alloimmunisation in a subsequent pregnancy.ResultsA total of 2652 studies were screened with 105 accessed for full-text review. Two studies have been included with high bias appreciated. Both studies found few women to be sensitised in forming antibodies after an abortion. The limited studies available and heterogeneity prevent the conduction of a meta-analysis.ConclusionsRh immunoglobulin has well-documented safety. However, it is not without risks and costs, is a possible barrier to delivering efficient services, and may have limited availability in some countries. The evidence base and quality of studies are currently limited. There is unclear benefit from the recommendation for Rh testing and immunoglobulin administration in early pregnancy. More research is needed as clinical practice guidelines are varied, based on expert opinions and moving away from testing and administration at time of abortion.ImplicationsThere is limited evidence surrounding medical benefit of Rh testing and immunoglobulin administration in early pregnancy. Further research is needed to define alloimmunisation and immunoglobulin benefit to update standards of care. Additionally, other factors should be considered in forming clinical policies and guidelines such as costs, feasibility and impact on access to care for patients.

Time trends in contraceptive prescribing in UK primary care 2000–2018: a repeated cross-sectional study

BackgroundOver the last 20 years, new contraceptive methods became available and incentives to increase contraceptive uptake were introduced. We aimed to describe temporal trends in non-barrier contraceptive prescribing in UK primary care for the period 2000–2018.MethodsA repeated cross-sectional study using patient data from the IQVIA Medical Research Data (IMRD) database. The proportion (95% CI) of women prescribed non-barrier contraception per year was captured.ResultsA total of 2 705 638 women aged 15–49 years were included. Between 2000 and 2018, the proportion of women prescribed combined hormonal contraception (CHC) fell from 26.2% (26.0%–26.3%) to 14.3% (14.2%–14.3%). Prescriptions for progestogen-only pills (POPs) and long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) rose from 4.3% (4.3%–4.4%) to 10.8% (10.7%–10.9%) and 4.2% (4.1%–4.2%) to 6.5% (6.5%–6.6%), respectively. Comparing 2018 data for most deprived versus least deprived areas, women from the most deprived areas were more likely to be prescribed LARC (7.7% (7.5%–7.9%) vs 5.6% (5.4%–5.8%)) while women from the least deprived areas were more likely to be prescribed contraceptive pills (20.8% (21.1%–21.5%) vs 26.2% (26.5%–26.9%)). In 2009, LARC prescriptions increased irrespective of age and social deprivation in line with a pay-for-performance incentive. However, following the incentive's withdrawal in 2014, LARC prescriptions for adolescents aged 15–19 years fell from 6.8% (6.6%–7.0%) in 2013 to 5.6% (5.4%–5.8%) in 2018.ConclusionsCHC prescribing fell by 46% while POP prescribing more than doubled. The type of contraception prescribed was influenced by social deprivation. Withdrawal of a pay-for-performance incentive may have adversely affected adolescent LARC uptake, highlighting the need for further intervention to target this at-risk group.