The association between abortion restrictions and patient-centered care for early pregnancy loss at US obstetrics-gynecology residency programs

BACKGROUND: Early pregnancy loss is a common medical problem, and the recommended treatments overlap with those used for induced abortions. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends the incorporation of clinical and patient factors when applying conservative published imaging guidelines to determine the timing of intervention for early pregnancy loss. However, in places where abortion is heavily regulated, clinicians who manage early pregnancy loss may cautiously rely on the strictest criteria to differentiate between early pregnancy loss and a potentially viable pregnancy. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also notes that specific treatment modalities that are frequently used to induce abortion, including the use of mifepristone in medical therapy and surgical aspiration in an office setting, are cost-effective and beneficial for patients with early pregnancy loss. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine how US-based obstetrics and gynecology residency training institutions adhere to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations for early pregnancy loss management, including the timing and types of interventions, and to evaluate the relationship with institutional and state abortion restrictions. STUDY DESIGN: From November 2021 to January 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional study of all 296 US-based obstetrics and gynecology residency programs by emailing them and requesting that a faculty member complete a survey about early pregnancy loss practices at their institution. We asked about location of diagnosis, use of imaging guidelines before offering intervention, treatment options available at their institution, and program and personal characteristics. We used chi-square tests and logistic regressions to compare the availability of early pregnancy loss care based on institutional indication-based abortion restrictions and state legislative hostility to abortion care. RESULTS: Of the 149 programs that responded (50.3% response rate), 74 (49.7%) reported that they did not offer any intervention for suspected early pregnancy loss unless rigid imaging criteria were met, whereas the remaining 75 (50.3%) programs reported that they incorporated imaging guidelines with other factors. In an unadjusted analysis, programs were less likely to incorporate other factors with imaging criteria if they were in a state with legislative policies that were hostile toward abortion (33% vs 79%; P<.001) or if the institution restricted abortion by indication (27% vs 88%; P<.001). Mifepristone was used less often in programs located in hostile states (32% vs 75%; P<.001) or in institutions with abortion restrictions (25% vs 86%; P<.001). Similarly, office-based suction aspiration use was lower in hostile states (48% vs 68%; P=.014) and in institutions with restrictions (40% vs 81%; P<.001). After controlling for program characteristics, including state policies and affiliation with family planning training programs or religious entities, institutional abortion restrictions were the only significant predictor of rigid reliance on imaging guidelines (odds ratio, 12.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-47.9). CONCLUSION: In training institutions that restrict access to induced abortion based on indication for care, residency programs are less likely to holistically incorporate clinical evidence and patient priorities in determining when to intervene in early pregnancy loss as recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Programs in restrictive institutional and state environments are also less likely to offer the full range of early pregnancy loss treatment options. With state abortion bans proliferating nationwide, evidence-based education and patient-centered care for early pregnancy loss may also be hindered.