Search

Early first-trimester medical abortion (MA) service (≤ 63 days) has been provided by doctors and nurses under doctors’ supervision since 2009 in Nepal. This paper assesses whether MA services provided by specifically trained and certified nurses and auxiliary nurse-midwives independently from doctors’ supervision, is considered as satisfactory by women as those provided by doctors. The data come from a multi-center, randomized, controlled equivalence trial conducted between April 2009 and March 2010 in five district hospitals in Nepal. Women seeking MA were randomly assigned to doctors or nurses and auxiliary nurse-midwives(ANMs).Eligible women were administered 200 mg mifepristone orally followed by 800 μg misoprostol vaginally two days later by their assigned providers and followed up 10–14 days later. At the follow-up visit women’s reported satisfaction with MA service they received was measured. Of 1295 women screened for eligibility, 535 were randomly assigned to a doctor and 542 to a nurse or ANM. Nineteen women were lost-to-follow up in the former group and 27 were lost-to-follow up or did not complete the acceptability interview in the latter group. This study is, therefore, based on516womenin the doctor’s group and 515 women in the nurse or ANM group. All women in the nurse or ANM group reported being satisfied or highly satisfied by MA compared to 99% in the doctor’s group. Satisfaction was similar regardless of the type of provider; 38% among nurse or ANM and 35% among the doctor group were “highly satisfied”, and 62% and 64%, respectively, were “satisfied”. Women’s experiences such as ‘less than expected amount or duration of bleeding following MA’, ‘shorter than expected duration of the abortion process’, and ‘able to manage symptoms’, were found to be associated with women’s higher satisfaction with MA. Counseling and information on the method, potential complications of MA and post-abortion contraception was nearly universal. No statistically significant differences were found in the level of satisfaction by age, parity, marital status, education or occupation of women. Women’s satisfaction with MA service provided by trained nurses or auxiliary nurse-midwives was similar to that provided by doctors. The findings, therefore, provide support for extending safe and accessible medical abortion services by government-trained nurses and auxiliary nurse midwives to women seeking early first trimester pregnancy termination. The trial was retrospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT01186302 ). Registered August 20, 2010.

Obstetric hemorrhage is the primary cause of maternal mortality worldwide, especially in lower-resource settings that are characterized by treatment delays [1]. The non-pneumatic anti-shock garment (NASG) is a first-aid device used to stabilize women in shock from obstetric hemorrhage until they can receive definitive care. The authors conducted a cluster-randomized trial (CRT) to evaluate NASG application at the primary health clinic prior to referral hospital transfer on maternal outcomes. Control participants received the NASG upon arrival at the referral hospital. The intent-to-treat analysis (ITT) reported a non-statistically significant 46% reduction in mortality, 54% reduction in extreme adverse outcomes, and a significant 25% faster recovery from shock associated with earlier NASG intervention [2]. However, protocol violations occurred, potentially diluting the intervention effect. Thus, the effect of earlier NASG application was evaluated using 2 per-protocol analysis strategies.

Background Obstetric hemorrhage is the leading cause of maternal mortality. Using a cluster randomized design, we investigated whether application of the Non-pneumatic Anti-Shock Garment (NASG) before transport to referral hospitals (RHs) from primary health care centers (PHCs) decreased adverse outcomes among women with hypovolemic shock. We hypothesized the NASG group would have a 50% reduction in adverse outcomes. Methods and Findings We randomly assigned 38 PHCs in Zambia and Zimbabwe to standard obstetric hemorrhage/shock protocols or the same protocols plus NASG prior to transport. All women received the NASG at the RH. The primary outcomes were maternal mortality; severe, end-organ failure maternal morbidity; and a composite mortality/morbidity outcome, which we labeled extreme adverse outcome (EAO). We also examined whether the NASG contributed to negative side effects and secondary outcomes. The sample size for statistical power was not reached; of a planned 2400 women, 880 were enrolled, 405 in the intervention group. The intervention was associated with a non-significant 46% reduced odds of mortality (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.14–2.05, p = 0.37) and 54% reduction in composite EAO (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.13–1.62, p = 0.22). Women with NASGs recovered from shock significantly faster (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02–1.52, p = 0.03). No differences were observed in secondary outcomes or negative effects. The main limitation was small sample size. Conclusions Despite a lack of statistical significance, the 54% reduced odds of EAO and the significantly faster shock recovery suggest there might be treatment benefits from earlier application of the NASG for women experiencing delays obtaining definitive treatment for hypovolemic shock. As there are no other tools for shock management outside of referral facilities, and no safety issues found, consideration of NASGs as a temporizing measure during delays may be warranted. A pragmatic study with rigorous evaluation is suggested for further research. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00488462