Search

Abstract Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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. Trial registration The trial was retrospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT01186302 ). Registered August 20, 2010.

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.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.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.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00488462.

Access to safe abortion is a reproductive rights and justice issue, and it is imperative that safe abortion access during and after the COVID‐19 pandemic is a reality for all. India imposed a lockdown in March 2020 to contain the spread of the pandemic. Limited mobility, lack of clarity about abortion as an essential service and abortion as a service permitted through telemedicine, shut down of services providing long‐acting and permanent methods of contraception, and changes to decision‐making about birthing and parenting during a pandemic are factors that may impact the demand for abortion during and after the lockdown. Shortage of raw materials and limited inter‐ and intra‐ state transport of drugs may result in breakages in the supply of medication abortion. Given that 73 percent of abortions in India in 2015 occurred outside of health facilities, the pandemic may have several implications on the need for evidence‐based information and quality abortion services, as well as if and how medication abortion is accessed in India, and what self‐managed abortion looks like in the COVID‐19 era. We discuss factors contributing to reduced access to abortion, changes in abortion need, and suggest strategies to respond to an increased demand for abortion in India. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Planned Parenthood of Se. Penn. v. Casey, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade, but changed the standard by which restrictions on the right were evaluated. In doing so, the Court authorized states to regulate abortion in order to protect the health and safety of women seeking abortions. In response, many states passed abortion laws that were allegedly aimed at protecting women's health. However, medical evidence shows that many of these laws do not improve health outcomes for women, and in some cases harm women's health. In 2016, the Supreme Court's decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt clarified that "health-justified" regulations on abortion must be supported by evidence showing that the law actually promotes improved health outcomes. Several common forms of abortion restrictions currently in effect fail to meet this standard, such as certain informed consent laws, restrictions on medication abortion, and laws limiting the performance of abortion to physicians only. This article analyzes the medical evidence (or lack thereof) behind such regulations, and argues that such restrictions fail to meet the evidence-based standard of Whole Woman's Health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses the poor alignment of the aging statutory framework and modern understandings of medical best practice in the context of abortion services. With a particular focus on medical abortion, it assesses the significant challenges that the gulf between the two poses for clinicians, service providers, regulators and the courts. Law is said to be at its most effective where there is a shared regulatory community that accepts and endorses the values that underpin it. It is suggested that the example of abortion law provides a marked example of what happens when legal norms once justified by broadly shared moral understandings, concerns for patient safety and requirements of best practice are now either unsupported by or, indeed, sit in opposition to such concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]