Mifepristone use for early pregnancy loss: A qualitative study of barriers and facilitators among OB/GYNS in Massachusetts, USA.

CONTEXT Early pregnancy loss (EPL) affects 1 million patients in the United States (US) annually, but integration of mifepristone into EPL care may be complicated by regulatory barriers, practice-related factors, and abortion stigma. METHODS We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews among obstetrician-gynecologists in independent practice in Massachusetts, US on mifepristone use for EPL. We recruited participants via professional networks and purposively sampled for mifepristone use, practice type, time in practice, and geographic location within Massachusetts until we reached thematic saturation. We analyzed interviews using inductive and deductive coding under a thematic analysis framework to identify facilitators of and barriers to mifepristone use. RESULTS We interviewed 19 obstetrician-gynecologists; 12 had used mifepristone for EPL and 7 had not. Participants were in private practice (n = 12), academic practice (n = 6), or worked at a federally qualified health center (n = 1). Seven had fellowship training, including four in complex family planning. The most common facilitators of mifepristone use for EPL were access to the expertise or protocols of local-regional experts, leadership from a "champion," prior experience with abortion care, and hospital capacity constraints during the COVID-19 pandemic. The most common barriers were related to the Mifepristone Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Program imposed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Additionally, mifepristone's affiliation with abortion was a barrier to its use in EPL for some obstetrician-gynecologists. CONCLUSION The FDA Mifepristone REMS Program presents substantial barriers to obstetrician-gynecologists incorporating mifepristone into their EPL care.

[1]  T. Madden,et al.  Comparison of Early Pregnancy Loss Management Between States With Restrictive and Supportive Abortion Policies. , 2022, Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health.

[2]  C. Dehlendorf,et al.  Exploring the impact of mifepristone’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) on the integration of medication abortion into US family medicine primary care clinics , 2022, Contraception.

[3]  K. McGrail,et al.  Abortion Safety and Use with Normally Prescribed Mifepristone in Canada. , 2021, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  L. Freedman Willing and Unable , 2021, The Unfinished History of the Iran-Iraq War.

[5]  B. Kaneshiro,et al.  "It was close enough, but it wasn't close enough": a qualitative exploration of the impact of direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion on access to abortion care. , 2021, Contraception.

[6]  C. Dehlendorf,et al.  Greasing the wheels: The impact of COVID-19 on US physician attitudes and practices regarding medication abortion , 2021, Contraception.

[7]  S. Rubin,et al.  US clinicians' perspectives on how mifepristone regulations affect access to medication abortion and early pregnancy loss care in primary care. , 2021, Contraception.

[8]  D. Stulberg,et al.  Mifepristone restrictions and primary care: breaking the cycle of stigma through a learning collaborative model in the United States. , 2021, Contraception.

[9]  M. Nothnagle,et al.  Mifepristone and Misoprostol for Early Pregnancy Loss and Medication Abortion. , 2021, American family physician.

[10]  D. Grossman,et al.  Obstetrician-gynecologist willingness to provide medication abortion with removal of the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone. , 2021, Contraception.

[11]  U. Upadhyay,et al.  Adoption of no-test and telehealth medication abortion care among independent abortion providers in response to COVID-19☆ , 2020, Contraception: X.

[12]  N. Meirowitz,et al.  Adherence and acceptability of telehealth appointments for high-risk obstetrical patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic , 2020, American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM.

[13]  C. Bottomley,et al.  Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage (MifeMiso): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial , 2020, The Lancet.

[14]  M. D'Alton,et al.  Telehealth Uptake into Prenatal Care and Provider Attitudes during the COVID-19 Pandemic in New York City: A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis , 2020, American Journal of Perinatology.

[15]  D. Grossman,et al.  Induced Abortion Provision Among a National Sample of Obstetrician-Gynecologists. , 2019, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[16]  R. Fyfe,et al.  Combination therapy with mifepristone and misoprostol for the management of first trimester miscarriage: Improved success , 2018, The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology.

[17]  K. Barnhart,et al.  Mifepristone Pretreatment for the Medical Management of Early Pregnancy Loss , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  R. Aggarwal,et al.  Comparison of Mifepristone Followed by Misoprostol with Misoprostol Alone for Treatment of Early Pregnancy Failure: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial , 2018, The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India.

[19]  Rachel K. Jones,et al.  Estimating abortion provision and abortion referrals among United States obstetrician-gynecologists in private practice, , 2017, Contraception.

[20]  D. Grossman,et al.  Sixteen Years of Overregulation: Time to Unburden Mifeprex. , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  K. Kraemer,et al.  Differences among primary care physicians' adherence to 2009 ACOG guidelines for cervical cancer screening. , 2014, Journal of women's health.

[22]  Rachel K. Jones,et al.  Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2011. , 2014, Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health.

[23]  S. Ventura,et al.  Estimated pregnancy rates and rates of pregnancy outcomes for the United States, 1990-2008. , 2012, National vital statistics reports : from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System.

[24]  J. Fereday,et al.  Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development , 2006 .

[25]  H. Rubin,et al.  Internists' Attitudes about Clinical Practice Guidelines , 1994, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[26]  L. Rubenstein,et al.  Determinants of physician unwillingness to offer medical abortion using mifepristone. , 2006, Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health.