Telemedicine medical abortion service in Georgia: an evaluation of a strategy with reduced number of in-Clinic visits

References

• Ministry of Labor. Health and Social Affairs of Georgia, “Safe termination of pregnancy.” 2022. https://www.moh.gov.ge/ka/guidelines/
   Google Scholar
• Roberts SCM, Belusa E, Turok DK, et al. Do 72-Hour waiting periods and Two-Visit requirements for abortion affect women’s certainty? A prospective cohort study. Womens Health Issues. 2017;27(4):400–406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jovel I, Cartwright AF, Ralph L, et al. Abortion Waiting periods and decision certainty among people searching online for abortion care. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137(4):597–605.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moore AM, Frohwirth L, Blades N. What Women want from abortion counseling in the United States: a qualitative study of abortion patients in 2008. Soc Work Health Care. 2011;50(6):424–442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindo JM, Pineda-Torres M. New Evidence on the effects of mandatory waiting periods for abortion. J Health Econ. 2021;80:102533.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zane S, Creanga AA, Berg CJ, et al. Abortion-Related mortality in the United States: 1998–2010. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(2):258–265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapp N, Eckersberger E, Lavelanet A, et al. Medical abortion in the late first trimester: a systematic review. Contraception. 2019;99(2):77–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoctor L, Lamačková A. Mandatory waiting periods and biased abortion counseling in Central and Eastern Europe. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017;139(2):253–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finer LB, Frohwirth LF, Dauphinee LA, et al. Timing of steps and reasons for delays in obtaining abortions in the United States. Contraception. 2006;74(4):334–344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White K, deMartelly V, Grossman D, et al. Experiences Accessing abortion care in Alabama among women traveling for services. Womens Health Issues. 2016;26(3):298–304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrenreich K, Kaller S, Raifman S, et al. Women’s Experiences using telemedicine to attend abortion information visits in Utah: a qualitative study. Womens Health Issues. 2019;29(5):407–413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaller S, Daniel S, Raifman S, et al. Pre-Abortion informed consent through telemedicine vs. in person: differences in patient demographics and visit satisfaction. Womens Health Issues. 2021;31(3):227–235.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomperts R, Jelinska K, Davies S, et al. Using telemedicine for termination of pregnancy with mifepristone and misoprostol in settings where there is no access to safe services. BJOG. 2008;115(9):1171–1178. Aug
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland P, Raymond EG, Chong E. A direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion service in Australia: retrospective analysis of the first 18 months. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;58(3):335–340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond E, Chong E, Winikoff B, et al. TelAbortion: evaluation of a direct to patient telemedicine abortion service in the United States. Contraception. 2019;100(3):173–177.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Endler M, Lavelanet A, Cleeve A, et al. Telemedicine for medical abortion: a systematic review. BJOG. 2019;126(9):1094–1102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond EG, Shochet T, Blum J, et al. Serial multilevel urine pregnancy testing to assess medical abortion outcome: a meta-analysis. Contraception. May 2017;95(5):442–448.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gynuity Health Projects, “Use of Multi-Level Pregnancy Tests (MLPTs) for Medical Abortion Follow Up.” 2022. https://gynuity.org/assets/resources/factsht_mlpt_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Whitehouse KC, Shochet T, Lohr PA. Efficacy of a low-sensitivity urine pregnancy test for identifying ongoing pregnancy after medication abortion at 64 to 70 days of gestation. Contraception. 2022;110:21–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiala C, et al. hCG Testing to determine outcome after medical abortion: a review. J Preg Child Health. 2019;6:2.
   Google Scholar
• Louie KS. “Paving the way for pharmacy distribution: assessing whether women undergoing medical abortion can independently use and interpret the results of multi-level pregnancy test.,” in Poster session, Seattle, WA, USA. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Platais I, Tsereteli T, Comendant R, et al. Acceptability and feasibility of phone follow-up with a semiquantitative urine pregnancy test after medical abortion in Moldova and Uzbekistan. Contraception. 2015;91(2):178–183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blum J, Sheldon WR, Ngoc NTN, et al. Randomized trial assessing home use of two pregnancy tests for determining early medical abortion outcomes at 3, 7 and 14days after mifepristone. Contraception. 2016;94(2):115–121. Aug
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IBM Corp. IBM SPSS statistics for windows. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Tsereteli T, Chong E, Louie K, et al. Acceptability and feasibility of 400 μg buccal misoprostol after 200 mg mifepristone for early medical abortion in Georgia. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016;21(5):367–371. Sep
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstone P, Walker C, Hawtin K. Efficacy and safety of mifepristone-buccal misoprostol for early medical abortion in an Australian clinical setting. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;57(3):366–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen MJ, Creinin MD. Mifepristone with buccal misoprostol for medical abortion: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(1):12–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louie KS, Chong E, Tsereteli T, et al. The introduction of first trimester medical abortion in Armenia. Reproduc Health Matters. 2014;22(sup44):56–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aiken ARA, Lohr PA, Lord J, et al. Effectiveness, safety and acceptability of no-test medical abortion (termination of pregnancy) provided via telemedicine: a national cohort study. BJOG An Inter J Obstetr Gynaecol. 128(9):1464–1474.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chong E, et al. Expansion of a direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion service in the United States and experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Contraception. 2021;104(1):43–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gambir K, Kim C, Necastro KA, et al. Self-administered versus provider-administered medical abortion. Coch Database Syst Rev. 2020;3(3):CD013181.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chong E, Sheldon WR, Lopez-Green D, et al. Feasibility of multilevel pregnancy tests for telemedicine abortion service Follow-Up: a pilot study. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2020;46(Suppl 1):67–75.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peña M, et al. Telemedicine for medical abortion service provision in Mexico: a safety, feasibility, and acceptability study. Contraception. 2022;114:67–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Comendant R, Cook C, Hodorogea S, et al. Medical abortion via telemedicine for women and adolescents: experience from Moldova. Repro Female Child Health. 2022;1:80–87.
   Google Scholar
• Cucinotta D, Vanelli M. WHO Declares COVID-19 a pandemic. Acta Biomed. 2020;91(1):157–160.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Raymond EG, Grossman D, Mark A, et al. Commentary: no-test medication abortion: a sample protocol for increasing access during a pandemic and beyond. Contraception. 2020;101(6):361–366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bojovic N, Stanisljevic J, Giunti G. The impact of COVID-19 on abortion access: insights from the european union and the United Kingdom. Health Policy. 2021;125(7):841–858.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boydell N, Reynolds‐Wright J, Cameron S, et al. Women’s experiences of a telemedicine abortion service (up to 12 weeks) implemented during the coronavirus (COVID‐19) pandemic: a qualitative evaluation. BJOG. 2021;128(11):1752–1761.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noémie VB, Rozenberg S, Gilles C, et al. Impact of covid-lockdown on abortion management at a family planning in brussels. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2022;27(4):278–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar