ABSTRACT
Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, the British governments issued temporary approvals enabling the use of both pills for medical abortion at home. This permitted the introduction of a fully telemedical model of abortion care with consultations taking place via phone or video call and medications delivered to women’s homes. The approvals in England and Wales will expire at the end of March 2022, while that in Scotland remains under consultation.
Methods We interviewed 30 women who had undergone an abortion in England, Scotland or Wales between August and December 2021. We explored their views on the changes in abortion service configuration during the pandemic and whether abortion via telemedicine and use of abortion medications at home should continue.
Results Support for continuation of the permission to use mifepristone and misoprostol at home was overwhelmingly positive. Reasons cited included convenience, comfort, reduced stigma, privacy, and respect for autonomy. A telemedical model was also highly regarded for similar reasons but for some its necessity was linked to safety measures during the pandemic and an option to have an in-person interaction with a health professional at some point in the care pathway was endorsed.
Conclusions The approval to use abortion pills at home via telemedicine are supported by women having abortions in Great Britain. The respective governments in England, Scotland, and Wales, should be responsive to the patient voice and move to make permanent these important advances in abortion care.
What is already known on this topic During the COVID-pandemic, specific permission to use both pills for medical abortion at home was granted in England, Scotland and Wales leading to the widespread implementation of a telemedical model with direct-to-patient delivery of medications. The safety, effectiveness, and acceptability of this model of care had been well-documented prior to and during the pandemic.
What this study adds This study adds the voices of women undergoing abortion during the pandemic regarding the specific changes that led to the transformation of medical abortion care in Britain. Amongst 30 women interviewed, there was endorsement for the continuation of permissions to use medical abortion pills at home via telemedicine.
How this study might affect research, practice, or policy The UK government’s vision of health provision puts patients and the public first, where “no decision about me, without me” is the norm. Our findings support law and policy makers in applying this principle to recent developments in abortion care by making the permissions permanent.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was funded by NIHR (Award ID: NIHR129529).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approvals were obtained from the Research Ethics Committees of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (reference 2021/02/WEL), the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (reference 22761) and the NHS (reference 21/LO/0236).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Paper in collection COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, The University of Edinburgh, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos