The future of abortion is now: Mifepristone by mail and in-clinic abortion access in the United States

被引:7
|
作者
Mark, Alice [1 ]
Foster, Angel M. [2 ]
Perritt, Jamila [3 ]
机构
[1] Natl Abort Federat, Washington, DC 20005 USA
[2] Univ Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[3] Phys Reprod Hlth, New York, NY USA
关键词
Mifepristone; Misoprostol; Abortion; Self-managed abortion; Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy  (REMS); MEDICATION ABORTION; TELEMEDICINE; MISOPROSTOL; PREGNANCY; PROGRAM; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1016/j.contraception.2021.03.033
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health care delivery in all aspects of medicine, including abortion care. For 6 months, the mifepristone Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) was temporarily blocked, allowing for the remote provision of medication abortion. Remote medication abortion may become a dominant model of care in the future, either through the formal health system or through self-sourced, self-managed abortion. Clinics already face pressure from falling abortion rates and excessive regulation and with a transition to remote abortion, may not be able to sustain services. Although remote medication abortion improves access for many, those who need or want in-clinic care such as people later in pregnancy, people for whom abortion at home is not safe or feasible, or people who are not eligible for medication abortion, will need comprehensive support to access safe and appropriate care. To understand how we may adapt to remote abortion without leaving people behind, we can look outside of the U.S. to become familiar with emerging and alternative models of abortion care. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:38 / 42
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] The impact of decreasing access to abortion on teenagers with cancer in the United States
    Chan, Ava
    Liao, Cheng-I
    Eakin, Cortney
    Stewart, Chelsea
    Reiser, Hannah
    Kapp, Daniel
    Chan, John
    Aryasomayajula, Chinmayi
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2023, 176 : S279 - S279
  • [23] UNITED-STATES COURT SMOOTHES WAY FOR ABORTION CLINIC BLOCKADES
    MCBRIDE, G
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1993, 306 (6872): : 231 - 231
  • [24] Sampling strategies among studies of barriers to abortion in the United States: A scoping review of abortion access research
    Lands, Madison
    Dyer, Rachel L.
    Seymour, Jane W.
    [J]. CONTRACEPTION, 2024, 131
  • [25] Perceived Access to Abortion Among Women in the United States in 2018: Variation by State Abortion Policy Context
    Perreira, Krista M.
    Johnston, Emily M.
    Shartzer, Adele
    Yin, Sophia
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2020, 110 (07) : 1039 - 1045
  • [26] SURVEY ON ABORTION IN UNITED STATES
    不详
    [J]. POPULATION, 1972, 27 (4-5): : 893 - 895
  • [27] Trends in Abortion in the United States
    Jones, Rachel K.
    Kost, Kathryn
    Singh, Susheela
    Henshaw, Stanley K.
    Finer, Lawrence B.
    [J]. CLINICAL OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2009, 52 (02): : 119 - 129
  • [28] Telehealth Medication Abortion in Primary Care: A Comparison to Usual in-Clinic Care
    Srinivasulu, Silpa
    Nyandak, Deyang
    Fiastro, Anna E.
    MacNaughton, Honor
    Tressan, Amy
    Godfrey, Emily M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN BOARD OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 2024, 37 (02)
  • [29] US drugs agency approves abortion pill by mail but many states limit access
    Tanne, Janice Hopkins
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2021, 375 : n3120
  • [30] "Technically an abortion": Understanding perceptions and definitions of abortion in the United States
    VandeVusse, Alicia J.
    Mueller, Jennifer
    Kirstein, Marielle
    Strong, Joe
    Lindberg, Laura D.
    [J]. SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2023, 335