Article CommentaryCommentary

Family Physicians’ Role in Simplifying Medication Abortion During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Payal Patel, Sumathi Narayana, Zoey Thill, Marji Gold and Allison Paul
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine February 2021, 34 (Supplement) S33-S36; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2021.S1.200208

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Jones RK,
    2. Witwer E,
    3. Jerman J
    . Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2017. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2019.
  2. 2.↵
    National Academies of Sciences Eg, and Medicine, Health and Medicine Division, Board on Health Care Services, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice, Committee on Reproductive Health Services: Assessing the Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the U.S. (2018). The safety and quality of abortion care in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Jones RK,
    2. Jerman J
    . Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2014. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2017;49:17–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Upadhyay UD,
    2. Desai S,
    3. Zlidar V,
    4. et al
    . Incidence of emergency department visits and complications after abortion. Obstet Gynecol 2015;125:175–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Foster DG,
    2. Biggs MA,
    3. Ralph L,
    4. Gerdts C,
    5. Roberts S,
    6. Glymour MM
    . Socioeconomic outcomes of women who receive and women who are denied wanted abortions in the United States. Am J Public Health 2018;108:407–13.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Ralph LJ,
    2. Schwarz EB,
    3. Grossman D,
    4. Foster DG
    . Self-reported physical health of women who did and did not terminate pregnancy after seeking abortion services: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2019;171:238.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Raymond EG,
    2. Grossman D,
    3. Mark A,
    4. et al
    . Commentary: No-test medication abortion: a sample protocol for increasing access during a pandemic and beyond. Contraception 2020;101:361–6. S0010-7824(0020)30108-30106.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Bracken H,
    2. Clark W,
    3. Lichtenberg ES,
    4. et al
    . Alternatives to routine ultrasound for eligibility assessment prior to early termination of pregnancy with mifepristone–misoprostol. BJOG 2011;118:17–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Constant D,
    2. Harries J,
    3. Moodley J,
    4. Myer L
    . Accuracy of gestational age estimation from last menstrual period among women seeking abortion in South Africa, with a view to task sharing: a mixed methods study. Reprod Health 2017;14:100.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Raymond EG,
    2. Bracken H
    . Early medical abortion without prior ultrasound. Contraception 2015;92:212–214.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Hollenbach SJ,
    2. Cochran M,
    3. Harrington A
    . “Provoked” feto-maternal hemorrhage may represent insensible cell exchange in pregnancies from 6 to 22 weeks gestational age. Contraception 2019;100:142–146.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Horvath S,
    2. Tsao P,
    3. Huang ZY,
    4. et al
    . The concentration of fetal red blood cells in first-trimester pregnant women undergoing uterine aspiration is below the calculated threshold for Rh sensitization. Contraception 2020;102:1–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Wiebe ER,
    2. Campbell M,
    3. Aiken ARA,
    4. Albert A
    . Can we safely stop testing for Rh status and immunizing Rh-negative women having early abortions? A comparison of Rh alloimmunization in Canada and the Netherlands. Contraception: X 2019;1:100001.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Chen MJ,
    2. Rounds KM,
    3. Creinin MD,
    4. Cansino C,
    5. Hou MY
    . Comparing office and telephone follow-up after medical abortion. Contraception 2016;94:122–126.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Clark W,
    2. Bracken H,
    3. Tanenhaus J,
    4. Schweikert S,
    5. Lichtenberg ES,
    6. Winikoff B
    . Alternatives to a routine follow-up visit for early medical abortion. Obstet Gynecol 2010;115:264–272.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Endler M,
    2. Lavelanet A,
    3. Cleeve A,
    4. Ganatra B,
    5. Gomperts R,
    6. Gemzell-Danielsson K
    . Telemedicine for medical abortion: a systematic review. Bjog 2019;126:1094–1102.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Jackson AV,
    2. Dayananda I,
    3. Fortin JM,
    4. Fitzmaurice G,
    5. Goldberg AB
    . Can women accurately assess the outcome of medical abortion based on symptoms alone? Contraception 2012;85:192–197.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Perriera LK,
    2. Reeves MF,
    3. Chen BA,
    4. Hohmann HL,
    5. Hayes J,
    6. Creinin MD
    . Feasibility of telephone follow-up after medical abortion. Contraception 2010;81:143–149.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.↵
    1. Raymond EG,
    2. Tan YL,
    3. Grant M,
    4. et al
    . Self-assessment of medical abortion outcome using symptoms and home pregnancy testing. Contraception 2018;97:324–328.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    1. Beaman J,
    2. Schillinger D
    . Responding to evolving abortion regulations—the critical role of primary care. N Engl J Med 2019;380:e30.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    1. Fink KS,
    2. Phillips RL,
    3. Fryer GE,
    4. Koehn N
    . International medical graduates and the primary care workforce for rural underserved areas. Health Aff (Millwood) 2003;22:255–262.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Fryer GE,
    2. Green LA,
    3. Dovey SM,
    4. Phillips RI
    Jr. The United States relies on family physicians unlike any other specialty. Am Fam Physician 2001;63:1669.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.↵
    1. Phillips R,
    2. Dodoo M,
    3. Petterson S,
    4. et al
    . Specialty and geography distribution of the physician workforce: what influences medical student and resident choices? Robert Graham Center: Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care. 2009.2
  24. 24.↵
    1. Bennett IM,
    2. Baylson M,
    3. Kalkstein K,
    4. Gillespie G,
    5. Bellamy SL,
    6. Fleischman J
    . Early abortion in family medicine: clinical outcomes. Ann Fam Med 2009;7:527–533.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Prine L,
    2. Lesnewski R,
    3. Berley N,
    4. Gold M
    . Medical abortion in family practice: a case series. J Am Board Fam Pract 2003;16:290–295.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Srinivasulu S,
    2. Maldonado L,
    3. Prine L,
    4. Rubin SE
    . Intention to provide abortion upon completing family medicine residency and subsequent abortion provision: a 5-year follow-up survey. Contraception 2019;100:188–192.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    Food and Drug Administration. Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for single shared system mifepristone 200 mg. Washington (DC): Food and Drug Administration; 2019.3
  28. 28.↵
    1. Greenberg M,
    2. Herbitter C,
    3. Gawinski BA,
    4. Fletcher J,
    5. Gold M
    . Barriers and enablers to becoming abortion providers: the reproductive health program. Fam Med 2012;44:493–500.
    OpenUrlPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools

Jump to section

Keywords