Abstract
Objectives
To synthesise evidence on user experience of medical abortion at home
To develop a realist programme theory to explain what interventions improve user experience for whom and in what context.
To use this programme theory to develop recommendations for service providers and those having medical abortions at home
Background Changes in the therapeutic, technological and regulatory landscape are increasing access to medical abortion at home. This intervention is safe, effective and acceptable to most. Clinical pathways and user experience are nevertheless variable and a minority would not choose this method again. We synthesised evidence to inform service development and responsiveness for different people and contexts.
Methods We used a realist approach to literature review that starts from an initial programme theory and generates causal explanations in the form of context-mechanism-outcome configurations to test and develop that theory. We searched the literature 01/01/2000 - 09/12/2022 using broad search terms and then selected papers for their relevance to theory development in contexts relevant to service development in the UJ. Data were analysed using a realist approach to analysis to develop causal explanations.
Results Our searches identified 12,517 potentially relevant abstracts with 835 selected for the full text assessment and 49 papers included in the final review. Our synthesis suggests that having a choice of abortion location remains essential as some people are unable to have a medical abortion at home. Choice of place of abortion (home or clinical setting) was influenced by service factors (number, timing and wait for appointments), personal responsibilities (caring/work commitments), geography (travel time/distance), relationships (need for secrecy) and wish to be aware of/involved in the process. We found that the option for self-referral through a telemedicine consultation, realistic information on range of experiences, opportunities to personalise the process, improved pain relief and choice of when and how to discuss contraception could improve experience.
Discussion Acknowledging the work done by patients when moving an intervention from clinic to home is important. This includes preparing a space, managing privacy, managing work/caring obligations, deciding when/how to take medications, understanding what is normal, assessing experience and deciding when and how to ask for help. Strategies that reduce surprise or anxiety and enable preparation and a sense of control support the transition of this complex intervention outside healthcare environments.
Strenghts and limitations
– Strengths: systematic and transparent approach to the realist review, which was conducted in accordance with the RAMSES standards (27); Authorship team represents a variety of clinical and academic backgrounds
– Limitations: analysis on publicly accessible literature, located through recognised research databases and Google; there were gaps in the evidence that we found and we have highlighted these in our conclusions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021225307
Funding Statement
This paper is a part of the SACHA Study, funded by the National Institute of Health Research, award 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
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
Footnotes
Paula Baraister paula.baraitser{at}kcl.ac.uk
Caroline Free caroline.free{at}lshtm.ac.uk
Wendy Norman wendy.norman{at}lshtm.ac.uk
Maria Lewandowska maria.lewandowska{at}lshtm.ac.uk
Rebecca Meiksin rebecca.meiksin{at}lshtm.ac.uk
Melissa Palmer melissa.palmer{at}lshtm.ac.uk
Rachel Scott Rachel.scott{at}lshtm.ac.uk
Rebecca French rebecca.french{at}lshtm.ac.uk
Kaye Wellings kaye.wellings{at}lshtm.ac.uk
Alice Ivory alice.ivory{at}lshtm.ac.uk
Geoffrey Wong Geoffrey.wong{at}phc.ox.ac.uk
Data Availability
Data extracted from studies and used for analysis can be requested from the corresponding authors.