Management of early pregnancy loss among obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts and barriers to mifepristone use
To measure the prevalence of early pregnancy loss management types among obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts, and delineate barriers, facilitators, demographic and practice-related factors associated with mifepristone use for early pregnancy loss. We surveyed a census of obstetrician-gynecol...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Contraception (Stoneham) 2023-10, Vol.126, p.110108-110108, Article 110108 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 110108 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 110108 |
container_title | Contraception (Stoneham) |
container_volume | 126 |
creator | Neill, Sara Hoe, Emily Fortin, Jennifer Goldberg, Alisa B. Janiak, Elizabeth |
description | To measure the prevalence of early pregnancy loss management types among obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts, and delineate barriers, facilitators, demographic and practice-related factors associated with mifepristone use for early pregnancy loss.
We surveyed a census of obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts. Descriptive statistics measured the prevalence of offering expectant, misoprostol-alone, mifepristone and misoprostol, dilation and curettage in the office and operating room, and multivariate logistic regression analysis evaluated barriers and facilitators to mifepristone use. Data were weighted to account for nonresponders.
198 obstetrician-gynecologists responded to the survey (response rate=29%). Participants most commonly offered expectant management (98%), dilation and curettage in the operating room (94%), and misoprostol-only medication management (80%). Fewer offered mifepristone-misoprostol (51%) or dilation and curettage in an office setting (45%). Those in private practice or other practice types had lower odds of offering mifepristone-misoprostol than those in academic practice (private practice: aOR 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.19, 0.61]). Female physicians had higher odds of offering mifepristone-misoprostol (aOR 1.97, 95% CI [1.11, 3.49]). Obstetrician-gynecologists who included medication abortion in their practice had much higher odds of using mifepristone for early pregnancy loss (aOR 25.06, 95% CI [14.52, 43.24]). The Food and Drug Administration Risk and Evaluation Management Strategies Program was a primary barrier among those not using mifepristone (54%).
Many obstetrician-gynecologists do not offer mifepristone-based regimens for early pregnancy loss, which are more efficacious than misoprostol-only regimens. The Food and Drug Administration Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Program is a major barrier to mifepristone use.
Half of obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts do not use mifepristone for early pregnancy loss management. Major barriers include lack of experience with mifepristone and the Food and Drug Administration Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Program regulations. Removing medically unnecessary regulations and increasing education on mifepristone via access to abortion care experts may increase uptake of this practice. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.contraception.2023.110108 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2832841891</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S001078242300197X</els_id><sourcerecordid>2832841891</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c383t-5427b8914ff3b687532e5ce889d8f8ecbd7b32f3b39fc093dbfaf7bfb0cbf5c73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkMFq3DAQhkVJaTZpX6EIcunFW8myI5meQkibQkIv7VlI45GrxZa2khzYt6-WTQq95SSY-X7NzEfIFWdbzvj1590WYijJAO6Lj2HbslZseW0x9YZsuJJDw3quzsiG1VojVdudk4ucd4wxOfTyHTkXUgxdjWzI-miCmXDBUGh0FE2aD3SfcAomwIHOMWdqlhgmGm0uWJIHb0IzHQJCnOPkc8nUB_pocjbwe81YasGEkVqTkseUaYl08Q73qbIxIK3Me_LWmTnjh-f3kvz6evfz9r55-PHt--3NQwNCidL0XSutGnjnnLDXSvaixR5QqWFUTiHYUVrR1p4YHLBBjNYZJ62zDKzrQYpL8un07z7FPyvmohefAefZBIxr1q0Srep4HVHRLycUUr05odN14cWkg-ZMH73rnf7Puz561yfvNf3xedBqFxz_ZV9EV-DuBGA996l60Rk8BsDRJ4Six-hfNegvrN-gOQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2832841891</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Management of early pregnancy loss among obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts and barriers to mifepristone use</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Neill, Sara ; Hoe, Emily ; Fortin, Jennifer ; Goldberg, Alisa B. ; Janiak, Elizabeth</creator><creatorcontrib>Neill, Sara ; Hoe, Emily ; Fortin, Jennifer ; Goldberg, Alisa B. ; Janiak, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><description>To measure the prevalence of early pregnancy loss management types among obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts, and delineate barriers, facilitators, demographic and practice-related factors associated with mifepristone use for early pregnancy loss.
We surveyed a census of obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts. Descriptive statistics measured the prevalence of offering expectant, misoprostol-alone, mifepristone and misoprostol, dilation and curettage in the office and operating room, and multivariate logistic regression analysis evaluated barriers and facilitators to mifepristone use. Data were weighted to account for nonresponders.
198 obstetrician-gynecologists responded to the survey (response rate=29%). Participants most commonly offered expectant management (98%), dilation and curettage in the operating room (94%), and misoprostol-only medication management (80%). Fewer offered mifepristone-misoprostol (51%) or dilation and curettage in an office setting (45%). Those in private practice or other practice types had lower odds of offering mifepristone-misoprostol than those in academic practice (private practice: aOR 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.19, 0.61]). Female physicians had higher odds of offering mifepristone-misoprostol (aOR 1.97, 95% CI [1.11, 3.49]). Obstetrician-gynecologists who included medication abortion in their practice had much higher odds of using mifepristone for early pregnancy loss (aOR 25.06, 95% CI [14.52, 43.24]). The Food and Drug Administration Risk and Evaluation Management Strategies Program was a primary barrier among those not using mifepristone (54%).
Many obstetrician-gynecologists do not offer mifepristone-based regimens for early pregnancy loss, which are more efficacious than misoprostol-only regimens. The Food and Drug Administration Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Program is a major barrier to mifepristone use.
Half of obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts do not use mifepristone for early pregnancy loss management. Major barriers include lack of experience with mifepristone and the Food and Drug Administration Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Program regulations. Removing medically unnecessary regulations and increasing education on mifepristone via access to abortion care experts may increase uptake of this practice.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0010-7824</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0518</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2023.110108</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37394110</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Abortion ; Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ; Manual vacuum aspiration ; Miscarriage ; Misoprostol ; Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Program (REMS)</subject><ispartof>Contraception (Stoneham), 2023-10, Vol.126, p.110108-110108, Article 110108</ispartof><rights>2023 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c383t-5427b8914ff3b687532e5ce889d8f8ecbd7b32f3b39fc093dbfaf7bfb0cbf5c73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c383t-5427b8914ff3b687532e5ce889d8f8ecbd7b32f3b39fc093dbfaf7bfb0cbf5c73</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9473-8115</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001078242300197X$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,65309</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37394110$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Neill, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoe, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fortin, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goldberg, Alisa B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Janiak, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><title>Management of early pregnancy loss among obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts and barriers to mifepristone use</title><title>Contraception (Stoneham)</title><addtitle>Contraception</addtitle><description>To measure the prevalence of early pregnancy loss management types among obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts, and delineate barriers, facilitators, demographic and practice-related factors associated with mifepristone use for early pregnancy loss.
We surveyed a census of obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts. Descriptive statistics measured the prevalence of offering expectant, misoprostol-alone, mifepristone and misoprostol, dilation and curettage in the office and operating room, and multivariate logistic regression analysis evaluated barriers and facilitators to mifepristone use. Data were weighted to account for nonresponders.
198 obstetrician-gynecologists responded to the survey (response rate=29%). Participants most commonly offered expectant management (98%), dilation and curettage in the operating room (94%), and misoprostol-only medication management (80%). Fewer offered mifepristone-misoprostol (51%) or dilation and curettage in an office setting (45%). Those in private practice or other practice types had lower odds of offering mifepristone-misoprostol than those in academic practice (private practice: aOR 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.19, 0.61]). Female physicians had higher odds of offering mifepristone-misoprostol (aOR 1.97, 95% CI [1.11, 3.49]). Obstetrician-gynecologists who included medication abortion in their practice had much higher odds of using mifepristone for early pregnancy loss (aOR 25.06, 95% CI [14.52, 43.24]). The Food and Drug Administration Risk and Evaluation Management Strategies Program was a primary barrier among those not using mifepristone (54%).
Many obstetrician-gynecologists do not offer mifepristone-based regimens for early pregnancy loss, which are more efficacious than misoprostol-only regimens. The Food and Drug Administration Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Program is a major barrier to mifepristone use.
Half of obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts do not use mifepristone for early pregnancy loss management. Major barriers include lack of experience with mifepristone and the Food and Drug Administration Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Program regulations. Removing medically unnecessary regulations and increasing education on mifepristone via access to abortion care experts may increase uptake of this practice.</description><subject>Abortion</subject><subject>Food and Drug Administration (FDA)</subject><subject>Manual vacuum aspiration</subject><subject>Miscarriage</subject><subject>Misoprostol</subject><subject>Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Program (REMS)</subject><issn>0010-7824</issn><issn>1879-0518</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkMFq3DAQhkVJaTZpX6EIcunFW8myI5meQkibQkIv7VlI45GrxZa2khzYt6-WTQq95SSY-X7NzEfIFWdbzvj1590WYijJAO6Lj2HbslZseW0x9YZsuJJDw3quzsiG1VojVdudk4ucd4wxOfTyHTkXUgxdjWzI-miCmXDBUGh0FE2aD3SfcAomwIHOMWdqlhgmGm0uWJIHb0IzHQJCnOPkc8nUB_pocjbwe81YasGEkVqTkseUaYl08Q73qbIxIK3Me_LWmTnjh-f3kvz6evfz9r55-PHt--3NQwNCidL0XSutGnjnnLDXSvaixR5QqWFUTiHYUVrR1p4YHLBBjNYZJ62zDKzrQYpL8un07z7FPyvmohefAefZBIxr1q0Srep4HVHRLycUUr05odN14cWkg-ZMH73rnf7Puz561yfvNf3xedBqFxz_ZV9EV-DuBGA996l60Rk8BsDRJ4Six-hfNegvrN-gOQ</recordid><startdate>20231001</startdate><enddate>20231001</enddate><creator>Neill, Sara</creator><creator>Hoe, Emily</creator><creator>Fortin, Jennifer</creator><creator>Goldberg, Alisa B.</creator><creator>Janiak, Elizabeth</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9473-8115</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20231001</creationdate><title>Management of early pregnancy loss among obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts and barriers to mifepristone use</title><author>Neill, Sara ; Hoe, Emily ; Fortin, Jennifer ; Goldberg, Alisa B. ; Janiak, Elizabeth</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c383t-5427b8914ff3b687532e5ce889d8f8ecbd7b32f3b39fc093dbfaf7bfb0cbf5c73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Abortion</topic><topic>Food and Drug Administration (FDA)</topic><topic>Manual vacuum aspiration</topic><topic>Miscarriage</topic><topic>Misoprostol</topic><topic>Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Program (REMS)</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Neill, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoe, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fortin, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goldberg, Alisa B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Janiak, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Contraception (Stoneham)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Neill, Sara</au><au>Hoe, Emily</au><au>Fortin, Jennifer</au><au>Goldberg, Alisa B.</au><au>Janiak, Elizabeth</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Management of early pregnancy loss among obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts and barriers to mifepristone use</atitle><jtitle>Contraception (Stoneham)</jtitle><addtitle>Contraception</addtitle><date>2023-10-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>126</volume><spage>110108</spage><epage>110108</epage><pages>110108-110108</pages><artnum>110108</artnum><issn>0010-7824</issn><eissn>1879-0518</eissn><abstract>To measure the prevalence of early pregnancy loss management types among obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts, and delineate barriers, facilitators, demographic and practice-related factors associated with mifepristone use for early pregnancy loss.
We surveyed a census of obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts. Descriptive statistics measured the prevalence of offering expectant, misoprostol-alone, mifepristone and misoprostol, dilation and curettage in the office and operating room, and multivariate logistic regression analysis evaluated barriers and facilitators to mifepristone use. Data were weighted to account for nonresponders.
198 obstetrician-gynecologists responded to the survey (response rate=29%). Participants most commonly offered expectant management (98%), dilation and curettage in the operating room (94%), and misoprostol-only medication management (80%). Fewer offered mifepristone-misoprostol (51%) or dilation and curettage in an office setting (45%). Those in private practice or other practice types had lower odds of offering mifepristone-misoprostol than those in academic practice (private practice: aOR 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.19, 0.61]). Female physicians had higher odds of offering mifepristone-misoprostol (aOR 1.97, 95% CI [1.11, 3.49]). Obstetrician-gynecologists who included medication abortion in their practice had much higher odds of using mifepristone for early pregnancy loss (aOR 25.06, 95% CI [14.52, 43.24]). The Food and Drug Administration Risk and Evaluation Management Strategies Program was a primary barrier among those not using mifepristone (54%).
Many obstetrician-gynecologists do not offer mifepristone-based regimens for early pregnancy loss, which are more efficacious than misoprostol-only regimens. The Food and Drug Administration Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Program is a major barrier to mifepristone use.
Half of obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts do not use mifepristone for early pregnancy loss management. Major barriers include lack of experience with mifepristone and the Food and Drug Administration Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Program regulations. Removing medically unnecessary regulations and increasing education on mifepristone via access to abortion care experts may increase uptake of this practice.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>37394110</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.contraception.2023.110108</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9473-8115</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0010-7824 |
ispartof | Contraception (Stoneham), 2023-10, Vol.126, p.110108-110108, Article 110108 |
issn | 0010-7824 1879-0518 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2832841891 |
source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Abortion Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Manual vacuum aspiration Miscarriage Misoprostol Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Program (REMS) |
title | Management of early pregnancy loss among obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts and barriers to mifepristone use |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T06%3A47%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Management%20of%20early%20pregnancy%20loss%20among%20obstetrician-gynecologists%20in%20Massachusetts%20and%20barriers%20to%20mifepristone%20use&rft.jtitle=Contraception%20(Stoneham)&rft.au=Neill,%20Sara&rft.date=2023-10-01&rft.volume=126&rft.spage=110108&rft.epage=110108&rft.pages=110108-110108&rft.artnum=110108&rft.issn=0010-7824&rft.eissn=1879-0518&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.contraception.2023.110108&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2832841891%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2832841891&rft_id=info:pmid/37394110&rft_els_id=S001078242300197X&rfr_iscdi=true |