Mailing abortion pills does not delay care : A cohort study comparing mailed to in-person dispensing of abortion medications in the United States
Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved..
OBJECTIVE: Given the substantial barriers to abortion access in the United States, many clinics now mail patients abortion medications. We examined whether dispensing the medications by mail prolonged time to medication use.
STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed data from no-test medication abortions with medication provided either by mail or in a clinic from 11 United States clinics from February 2020 to January 2021. We examined mean number of days from patients' first contact with the clinic to mifepristone ingestion, its two-component intervals (first contact to medication dispensing and dispensing to mifepristone ingestion), and pregnancy duration at mifepristone ingestion. We used Poisson regression to compare mean outcomes across three dispensing methods: in-person, mailed from the clinic, and mailed from a mail-order pharmacy.
RESULTS: Among the 2600 records, patients took mifepristone on average at 49 days of gestation (95% CI, 47-51) and 7 days (95% CI, 4-10) after first contact. Mean time from first contact to mifepristone ingestion was 6 days when medications were dispensed in-person and 9 days when mailed (p = 0.38). While time from first contact to dispensing was similar across methods (6 days in-person, 5 days mailed, p = 0.77), more time elapsed from dispensing to mifepristone ingestion when medications were mailed (4 days from clinic, 5 days from mail-order pharmacy) versus dispensed in-person (0.3 days, p < 0.001). Time to mifepristone ingestion was shorter with higher pregnancy duration. Pregnancy duration at ingestion was similar across methods (48 days in-person, 50 days mailed).
CONCLUSIONS: Mailing medications did not significantly prolong time from patients' first contact with the clinic to mifepristone ingestion or increase pregnancy duration at mifepristone ingestion.
IMPLICATIONS: Abortion providers should offer a range of medication abortion dispensing options, prioritizing patient preference.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:121 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Contraception - 121(2023) vom: 15. Mai, Seite 109962 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Koenig, Leah R [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 05.05.2023 Date Revised 03.01.2024 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.contraception.2023.109962 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM352467398 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM352467398 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240108141147.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.contraception.2023.109962 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1247.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM352467398 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)36736715 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)S0010-7824(23)00015-X | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Koenig, Leah R |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Mailing abortion pills does not delay care |b A cohort study comparing mailed to in-person dispensing of abortion medications in the United States |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 05.05.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 03.01.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. | ||
| 520 | |a OBJECTIVE: Given the substantial barriers to abortion access in the United States, many clinics now mail patients abortion medications. We examined whether dispensing the medications by mail prolonged time to medication use | ||
| 520 | |a STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed data from no-test medication abortions with medication provided either by mail or in a clinic from 11 United States clinics from February 2020 to January 2021. We examined mean number of days from patients' first contact with the clinic to mifepristone ingestion, its two-component intervals (first contact to medication dispensing and dispensing to mifepristone ingestion), and pregnancy duration at mifepristone ingestion. We used Poisson regression to compare mean outcomes across three dispensing methods: in-person, mailed from the clinic, and mailed from a mail-order pharmacy | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: Among the 2600 records, patients took mifepristone on average at 49 days of gestation (95% CI, 47-51) and 7 days (95% CI, 4-10) after first contact. Mean time from first contact to mifepristone ingestion was 6 days when medications were dispensed in-person and 9 days when mailed (p = 0.38). While time from first contact to dispensing was similar across methods (6 days in-person, 5 days mailed, p = 0.77), more time elapsed from dispensing to mifepristone ingestion when medications were mailed (4 days from clinic, 5 days from mail-order pharmacy) versus dispensed in-person (0.3 days, p < 0.001). Time to mifepristone ingestion was shorter with higher pregnancy duration. Pregnancy duration at ingestion was similar across methods (48 days in-person, 50 days mailed) | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: Mailing medications did not significantly prolong time from patients' first contact with the clinic to mifepristone ingestion or increase pregnancy duration at mifepristone ingestion | ||
| 520 | |a IMPLICATIONS: Abortion providers should offer a range of medication abortion dispensing options, prioritizing patient preference | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Mailing | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Medication abortion | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Mifepristone | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Pharmacy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Telehealth | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Mifepristone |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a 320T6RNW1F |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Misoprostol |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a 0E43V0BB57 |2 NLM | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Raymond, Elizabeth G |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gold, Marji |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Boraas, Christy M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kaneshiro, Bliss |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Winikoff, Beverly |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Coplon, Leah |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Upadhyay, Ushma D |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Contraception |d 1972 |g 121(2023) vom: 15. Mai, Seite 109962 |w (DE-627)NLM000108367 |x 1879-0518 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:121 |g year:2023 |g day:15 |g month:05 |g pages:109962 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2023.109962 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 121 |j 2023 |b 15 |c 05 |h 109962 | ||