towards comprehensive early abortion service delivery in high
TRANSCRIPT
RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access
Towards comprehensive early abortionservice delivery in high income countries:insights for improving universal access toabortion in AustraliaAngela Dawson1* , Deborah Bateson2, Jane Estoesta3 and Elizabeth Sullivan4
Abstract
Background: Improving access to safe abortion is an essential strategy in the provision of universal access toreproductive health care. Australians are largely supportive of the provision of abortion and its decriminalization.However, the lack of data and the complex legal and service delivery situation impacts upon access for womenseeking an early termination of pregnancy. There are no systematic reviews from a health services perspective tohelp direct health planners and policy makers to improve access comprehensive medical and early surgicalabortion in high income countries. This review therefore aims to identify quality studies of abortion services toprovide insight into how access to services can be improved in Australia.
Methods: We undertook a structured search of six bibliographic databases and hand-searching to ascertain peerreviewed primary research in English between 2005 and 2015. Qualitative and quantitative study designs weredeemed suitable for inclusion. A deductive content analysis methodology was employed to analyse selectedmanuscripts based upon a framework we developed to examine access to early abortion services.
Results: This review identified the dimensions of access to surgical and medical abortion at clinic or hospital-outpatient based abortion services, as well as new service delivery approaches utilising a remote telemedicineapproach. A range of factors, mostly from studies in the United Kingdom and United States of America were foundto facilitate improved access to abortion, in particular, flexible service delivery approaches that provide women withcost effective options and technology based services. Standards, recommendations and targets were also identifiedthat provided services and providers with guidance regarding the quality of abortion care.
Conclusions: Key insights for service delivery in Australia include the: establishment of standards, provision ofchoice of procedure, improved provider education and training and the expansion of telemedicine for medicalabortion. However, to implement such directives leadership is required from Australian medical, nursing, midwiferyand pharmacy practitioners, academic faculties and their associated professional associations. In addition, politicalwill is needed to nationally decriminalise abortion and ensure dedicated public provision that is based oncomprehensive models tailored for all populations.
* Correspondence: [email protected] of Health, University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), P.O. Box 123,Ultimo, NSW 2007, Sydney, NSW, AustraliaFull list of author information is available at the end of the article
© 2016 The Author(s). Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link tothe Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1846-z
BackgroundAccess to a safe, early induced abortion, or the termin-ation of an unplanned pregnancy (up to and including13 weeks [1] can potentially prevent the death of nearlyhalf a million women and the associated morbidity ofanother five million women worldwide [2]. Improvingaccess to safe abortion is an essential strategy in theprovision of universal access to reproductive health andachieving the sustainable development goals [3].Comprehensive safe abortion care encompasses the
provision of elective abortion services at the request ofthe woman, along with counselling for contraceptiveuse, medical after-care, and attention to other issuesthat are relevant to the woman’s health [4]. Theprovision of safe medical and/or surgical abortion re-quires an enabling legal, regulatory and policy envir-onment that is responsive to women’s needs andcommunity demands for quality care, services and in-formation. The legal grounds upon which a woman ispermitted to have an abortion differ across and withincountries. However, a woman’s access can also be affectedby the: availability and quality of health services, geo-graphical access to services, financial affordability andsocio-cultural acceptability of the procedure/s and as-sociated care.Planning, delivering and evaluating legal and safe,
comprehensive abortion services that enable women tomake a choice about the use of such services requires at-tention to a number of principles that were developedby the World Health Organization (WHO) through ahigh level consultative process. These quality servicedelivery principles include the establishment of nationalstandards and guidelines, integrated multidisciplinaryservices, ensuring health-care provider skills and perform-ance, the costing and financing of services, and a systematicapproach to policy and programme development.Despite numerous guidelines and recommendations
there has been little research from a health services ap-proach to help direct health planners and policy makersto increase access to abortion. Souza et al. have notedgaps in best practice with regard to integrating abortionservices into existing family planning services and opti-mizing the workforce [5]. However, although task shift-ing from doctors to nurses and midwives in high incomecountries (HIC) (countries with a gross national incomeper capita of $12,476 or greater) [6] shows promise [7],there is a lack of evidence in this area [8]. The few sys-tematic reviews that are available in the area of servicedelivery include an examination of the acceptability ofhome and clinic based medical abortion by Ngo et al. [9]in largely low and middle income countries (LMIC) withthe exception of one study from France. Another reviewcomprising three studies from Italy, Scotland andIceland found no evidence of increased acceptance and
use of contraceptive methods after an abortion [10].The review by Doren at al. [11] examines factors thatfacilitate or constrain access to abortion from the per-spective of women and providers. Despite these studiesthere are no systematic reviews that provide insightinto models of comprehensive medical and surgicalabortion services. This review therefore aims to identifyquality studies of abortion services to provide insightinto how access to services can be improved inAustralia.
The Australian contextThere is no national data collection on the incidence ofinduced abortion in Australia. Notification of abortionsis mandatory in the States of South Australia, WesternAustralia and the Norther Territory but only SouthAustralia and Western Australia publish data on inducedabortions [12, 13]. Several studies have estimated thenumber of abortions in Australia of over 80,000. The esti-mated number of induced abortions adjusted for patientswho do not claim Medicare (National ReimbursementServices) were 84218 and 83210 in 2013 and 2014, re-spectively. The national age-standardised abortion ratewas 19.7 per 1000 women in 2003 and 19.3 per 1000women in 2004. However, the latest information was from2004 [14–16].The situation in Australia is further complicated with
marked differences in abortion legislation between statesand territories. Of the nine laws that govern abortion inthe country, restrictions exist in all with the exception ofthe Australian Capital Territory. This highlights the ur-gent need for reform [17]. The recent focus at the na-tional level has been on new Medicare Benefit paymentsfor pregnancy support counselling that has been poorlyaccessed by women with unplanned pregnancies [18].The Australian public including health professionals
are largely supportive of the provision of abortion [19, 20]and its decriminalization [21]. However, the lack of dataand the complex legal and service delivery situation im-pacts upon access for women seeking an early terminationof pregnancy. Recent literature cites issues related to geo-graphical and financial access [22, 23] and considerablegaps in women’s knowledge [24]. Services are providedacross a myriad of public and private contexts where thereis no accepted and standardized approach for service de-livery that facilitates universal access to comprehensiveabortion care. This paper therefore aims to identify servicedelivery models of comprehensive abortion care, bothmedical and surgical, that has been effective in increasingaccess to early abortion care in high income country set-tings. Such insights may provide Australia with practicalevidence-based policy options for improving access toabortion services.
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 Page 2 of 23
A framework for understanding the factors contributingto universal access to comprehensive abortion servicesAccess can be understood from supply and demand sideperspectives [25]. Demand for a service is influenced byfactors that determine whether a woman is willing andable to seek appropriate abortion care. Supply is deter-mined by factors that include availability, technology,management, and price that interact to produce effectivehealth care. These perspectives can be considered undervarious dimensions of access that are well described inthe literature [26, 27]. We have summarised these dimen-sions in a framework adapted from existing literature[28, 29] (see Table 1) in order to conceptualise ques-tions that can be used to examine the extent of accessto abortion services.
MethodsSix bibliographic databases (Medline, PubMed, Web ofScience, ProQuest Health and Medicine, Scopus, ScienceDirect), Google Scholar and the reference lists of identifiedpapers were methodically searched to retrieve research lit-erature. A deductive qualitative content analysis method-ology was employed to analyse selected primary researchmanuscripts [30].A Population, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes,
Study design question guided the development of the
review question [31]. The question we sought to answerwas: for services providing first trimester abortion inhigh income country settings, what approaches to servicedelivery have been found to be effective in increasing ac-cess? We aimed to include studies with demonstrable out-comes from both supply and demand perspectives whileacknowledging important health systems factors that en-able service delivery. We sought studies examining com-prehensive abortion services, as well those investigatingcomponents of abortion services with a focus on under-standing new or existing delivery systems and key pro-cesses as defined by Donadedian [32]. Outcomes ofinterests include the abortion service delivered, changesin behaviour such as contraception uptake, change inhealth status such as complete terminations and women’saccess to abortions services as defined in Table 1 includingsatisfaction and uptake of services.We defined comprehensive abortion service delivery
as the provision of legal, safe, stigma free, high qualityservices that include abortion, post abortion care,contraception and referral. This also involves attentionto issues concerning information provision, initial as-sessment and arrangements for the procedure as out-lined in the recent best practice paper by the RoyalCollege of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG)[33] and service factors identified by IPAS [34].
Table 1 A framework for examining access to early abortion services
Access Dimensions Questions to establish extent of access to comprehensive abortion services-what isdone and how
Availability: The number of existing abortion services meetwomen’s needs
How many and what types of abortion services exist? Which organizations offer theseservices? Are there enough willing and skilled personnel to deliver abortion services?Do the services offer choices that correspond with the needs of financiallydisadvantaged women? Are the services and supplies of abortion drugs andassociated equipment and tests sufficient to cover the demand?
Accessibility: Abortion services are near where women live, oraccessible in their homes and referral timely
What is the geographical distance between abortion services and the homes ofwomen? Can services be reached and women referred in a timely and stress-freemanner? How has technology been employed to address issues of distance?
Affordability: The prices of terminations are aligned withwomen’s income and ability to pay
What are the direct costs of abortion services and the associated commodities? Whatare the indirect costs in terms of transportation, childcare, lost time and income? Arepayment options available for women? What are the costs to the health system andare they affordable?
Adequacy: The organization of abortion services meetwomen’s expectations
How are/is the abortion service/s organized? Does the organizational structure meetwomen’s expectations? Do opening hours match the schedules of women? Arefacilities clean, organized and well managed?
Acceptability: The services are satisfactory and used bywomen
Does the information, explanation, and service provided accommodate social normsand values? Do women find self-management aspects such as drug taking and pregnancytesting satisfactory and easy to use? Do women feel welcome and cared for? Do womentrust in the competence and character of the health care providers?
Quality: The services are scientifically and medicallyappropriate and of good quality
Are there service delivery standards and quality management systems? How arewomen’s complaints dealt with? What quality assurance, control and improvementmechanisms are in place? Quality also extends to the manner in which women aretreated, and how underlying determinants of health are addressed. Is there providersensitivity training (i.e. in appropriate language use, cultural safety, privacy) or/andincentive schemes for providers to offer services? Are providers accredited, andregulated? Do providers collect accurate data? Is family planning/contraceptive adviceprovided? How are abortifacient drugs packaged? Is treatment observed if required?What family planning training and peer support is available for providers?
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 Page 3 of 23
In line with other systematic reviews in the field [35, 36]a structured search of contemporary research literaturewas conducted between 2005 and 2015 using key words:“abortion” OR “termination of pregnancy” AND “servicedelivery” OR “model of care”. We sought to assess the re-sults of peer reviewed primary research literature thereforegrey resources were excluded. Retrieved records were firstscreened for their focus on abortion service delivery ac-cording to the review question by the first author and du-plicates removed. According to the inclusion/exclusioncriteria (see Table 2) studies whose focus was outside ofthe aim, along with discursive papers and those older than10 years were removed. The Preferred Reporting Items forSystematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guide-lines were employed to report the review process [37](see Fig. 1). The sources and numbers of papers re-trieved and screened according to their relevance areoutlined at Table 3. Most papers were then excluded(999) at closer examination as they were not concernedwith specific service delivery aspects the paper by Loeberis one example [38].Forty-one papers were appraised using the Critical Ap-
praisal Skills Programme tool for qualitative research[39] and Pluye et al.’s [40] scoring system was used toassess the non-experimental and mixed method studies.Fourteen items were discarded due to methodologicalconcerns. The lead author first appraised the papersusing the checklists of both tools which were independ-ently verified by the DB and ES.Data were extracted from the twenty-nine papers and
first described according to characteristics of the research(e.g., primary author, year of publication, study setting); re-search participants (age, gender, and socio-demographicdata); study aim; study design, and findings (see Table 3).The conceptual framework outlined at Table 1 was thenapplied to identify the dimensions of access and demandor supply perspective. A content analysis of the extractedtext relating to each dimensions of access was performed
by the first author and then discussed with all authors.The questions aligned with each dimension of access aswere used to interrogate the findings of the paper. Wethen identified evidence of processes and outcomes thatcontributed to the ability of the service to increase ac-cess to abortion, as well as the constraints, to provideinsight into how access to services could be improvedin Australia.
ResultsTwenty-nine papers were included in this review (seeTable 3). Fourteen papers were from the United Kingdom(UK) [41–54], seven from the United States (US) [55–61],two from Russia [62, 63], two from Australia [22, 23],three from New Zealand (NZ) [64–66] and one Canadianpaper [67]. Of these papers all were quantitative except forthree qualitative studies [22, 57, 61].We categorized the papers according to the aspect of
the abortion service under study, outcome measures, di-mensions of access covered (see Table 4) and their focuson supply, demand or both (see Table 5). Of these, sixpapers focus specifically on service delivery related to as-pects of surgical termination of pregnancy (STOP) whilenine papers were concerned with medical termination(MTOP). Other papers describe both types of abortionwith service related outcomes according to the compo-nents of care [48, 63], approach to service integration [45],referral, booking and counselling [43, 44, 49, 56, 67]and the type of facility where the services are provided[23, 46, 60, 61, 64–66]. Of the access dimensions covered,least covered were adequacy and affordability with supplyfocused papers gaining more attention than those solelyconcerned with demand side issues. The results of the ana-lysis of the findings section of the 29 papers as per thequestions generated from the dimensions in Table 1 are de-scribed below. We have specifically reported factors thathave been identified to enhance access service delivery andthose that have been found to constrain access to services.
Table 2 The inclusion/exclusion criteria applied to the screening of papers for the review
Included Excluded
Health service research examining how women access health providersand early abortion services, how much care costs, and what happens towomen as a result of this care
Clinical studies examining safety and effectiveness of medications, devices,diagnostic products and treatment regimens intended for early abortion
Research examining first trimester abortion service delivery processes,activities, strategies or components with the goal of improvingprovision, quality, utilization, coverage, efficiency, and equity
Research examining input aspects or resources of abortion care such ashuman resources, insurance schemes, drug supply or procurement,national policy or governance
Studies that include women’s and provider’s experiences of an actualearly abortion service or specific aspects of the delivery of the service orapproaches involved
Studies exploring women’s preferences, reasons, opinions for or aboutservices if they needed them. Papers concerning health professional’sgeneral experiences of provision or interest in provision
Primary research paper Discursive or descriptive outlines of projects, conference abstracts
High income country Upper middle, middle, lower middle and low income country setting
English Non English
>2005 <2005
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 Page 4 of 23
AvailabilityThe availability of both MTOP and STOP services atfacilities was found in one study to increase access.Tupper et al. describe the development of a new MTOPservice in the UK to address a gap in the public sectorprovision of abortion; and to increase the timeliness andchoice of type of first trimester abortion for women in anarea where only STOP had previously been availableand MTOP via an out of area private provider [53].This retrospective audit of the first 12 months of theservice indicate that it went some way towards address-ing the need for an increase in the availably of MTOPand meeting the Department of Health targets on TOPto reduce waiting times and increase the number ofwomen provided with an abortion under 10 weeks’ gesta-tion. The findings show that all available appointmentswere filled in the first week that the service was openedhowever some patients had to be referred in the first8 months due to a lack of staffing capacity. The servicewas therefore extended to accommodate the larger thananticipated demand resulting in lower numbers of onwardreferrals. Another UK study evaluated a newly established,public and NGO sector MTOP service to increasewomen’s choice in an area where STOP was only available.However the impact of the new service was not reportedother than the numbers of successful early MTOP pro-cedures [46].
Three papers in the review outline the NGO, PlannedParenthood’s efforts to increase the availability of MTOPin the one State in the US by providing medical abortionvia telemedicine at clinics without an on-site physician[57–59]. Women noted the service enabled them toundergo the procedure sooner without waiting for anappointment which ensured the availability of MTOP asper the gestational age limit. Staff noted that the servicewas able to achieve a greater reach and offer morechoice for abortion, as well as access to timely same daytreatment. Staff stated that they found the process ofintroducing the service useful in building their skills andability to provide new services [57]. There was an in-crease in the proportion of medical abortions in theclinics from 46 to 54 %. Clinic patients had increasedodds of obtaining both MTOP before 13 weeks’ gestationafter the introduction of telemedicine [58, 59].Another paper examined the use of a telephone book-
ing service to increase the availability abortion via man-ual vacuum aspiration (MVA) under local anaesthesia ina local English hospital [52]. The study established thatdemand from referrers for the telephone booking clinicwas greater than could be accommodated by the service[52]. However, substituting two doctor assessment clinicsof 10 patients for two clinics of six patients, supported by2.5 nurse telephone clinics, was able to increase theservice capacity by 25 %.
Fig. 1 The Literature review selection process. Preferred Reporting diagram for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) showing selectionof publications for review
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 Page 5 of 23
Table
3Summaryof
allp
apersinclud
edin
thereview
Reference
Con
text
Metho
dSample/participants
Aim
Find
ings
(Astle,C
ameron
&John
ston
e2012)[54]
Med
icalabortio
n:NationalH
ealth
Serviceho
spitalScotland
UK
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
Aretrospe
ctiveauditof
facilitydata
1128
wom
enun
dergoing
med
icalabortio
n(upto
64days’g
estatio
n)over
9-mon
thpe
riod
Toestablishho
wearly
med
ical
dischargeim
pactsup
onan
abortio
nservicein
term
sof
unsche
duled
re-attendanceratesandcontraception
provision
atdischarge.
590(52%)choseEM
D.The
rewas
nosign
ificant
differencein
unsche
duled
re-atten
danceratesbe
tweenEM
D(n=23,4
%)a
nddaycase
grou
ps(n=20,4
%).Therewas
nosign
ificant
differencein
theprop
ortio
nof
wom
enin
each
grou
pwho
leftho
spitalw
ithan
effectivemetho
dof
contraception
(n=362,61
%andn=355,60
%for
EMDanddaycase
grou
ps,respe
ctively).
(Blum
etal.
2012)[55]
Medicalabortion:Stanford
University
Hospital'sOB/GYN
clinic,PaloAlto,
CA;Plann
edParentho
odMarMon
te,
Sacram
ento,2
clinicsof
theFamily
Planning
AssociatesMedicalGroup
,Ch
icago,USA
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
prospe
ctiveclinicalstud
yandsurvey
429wom
enused
apreg
nancy
testto
determ
inebaselinehC
Gon
thedayof
mifepristone
administrationandfollow-up
hCG1weeklater.189wom
encompleted
asurvey.
Toassesstheeffectivenessof
asemi-
quantitativeho
mepregnancytestas
apo
ssiblereplacem
entfor
in-person
follow-upafterm
edicalabortion.
Thetestiden
tifiedtheon
eon
going
preg
nancyin
theclinicalstud
ycoho
rt.
Sensitivity
andspecificity
were
calculated
at100.0%
and97.0%.The
majority
ofparticipantsin
both
the
clinicalstud
yandtheuser
compreh
ension
survey
foun
dthetest
tobe
“veryeasy”or
“easy”
touse.
(Cam
eron
etal.
2010)[41]
Medicalabortion:ho
spitalEdinb
urgh
,Scotland
,UK
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
prospe
ctiveclinicalstud
yandsurvey
145wom
enchoseto
goho
me
toabort,69
%wom
encompleted
questio
nnaires
Toassesseffectivenessandsatisfaction
ofwom
enwith
early
medicaldischarge
afterabo
rtion
Thecommon
estreason
sgivenfor
choo
sing
togo
homewere:to
get
homesoon
er(53%)andto
bein
the
privacyof
one’sow
nho
me(47%),
81%
ofthewom
enstated
that
bleeding
was
either
“asexpe
cted
”(55%)o
r“not
asbadas
expe
cted
”(26%),and58
%of
thewom
enstated
that
thepain
was
“asexpe
cted
”(40%)
or“not
asbadas
expected”(18%),84
%of
thewom
ensaidthatthey
would
recommendthismetho
dto
afriend.
(Cam
eron
etal.
2012)[42]
Med
icalabortio
n:Ro
yalInfirm
ary
ofEdinbu
rgh,Scotland
,UK
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
prospe
ctiveclinicalstud
yandsurvey
476op
tedforteleph
one
follow-up
Toevaluate
teleph
onefollow-upin
term
sof
describ
ingthenu
mbe
rsof
wom
enchoo
sing
tobe
followed
upin
thisway,follow-uprates,efficacy
ofLSUPtestforde
tectingon
going
preg
nanciesandwom
en’s
satisfaction
476ou
tof
619wom
en(77%).op
ted
forteleph
onefollow-up,
4wom
en(1%)attendedtheclinicbeforeteleph
one
follow-upbecauseof
painor
bleeding
.Atotalof410
(87%)o
fthe
remaining
472
wom
enweresuccessfullycontactedby
teleph
one.Sixtywom
en(15%)screened
‘positive’,three
ofwho
mhadon
going
pregnancies,andon
ewom
anfalsely
screened
‘negative’.The
sensitivityof
the
teleph
onefollow-upwas
75%
[95%
confiden
ceinterval(CI)30.1–95.4],and
specificity
was
86%
(95%
CI8
2.2–89).
Thene
gativepred
ictivevaluewas
99.7%(95%CI
98.4–99.9),and
positive
predictiv
evaluewas
5%
(95%
CI
1.7–13.7).Allwom
ensurveyed
(n=75)
wou
ldrecommendteleph
onefollow-up
toafriend.
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 Page 6 of 23
Table
3Summaryof
allp
apersinclud
edin
thereview
(Con
tinued)
(David
etal.
2007)[62]
Perm
,BereznikiandVelikyNovgo
rod
20health
caresites
(five
maternity
hospitals,six
wom
en’sconsultation
centreslinkedto
thoseho
spitals,
threefamily
planning
clinicsandsix
children’spo
lyclinicsRussia
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
impact,p
re-andpo
st-
interven
tionsurveys
489abortio
nclientsin
2000,
559in
2002
and527in
2003
surveyed
inthreefacilities
Toevaluate
apo
stabortio
ncare
prog
ram
toincrease
uptake
offamily
planning
Theprojectinterventio
nsappearto
have
extend
edthecoverage
ofcontraceptive
coun
selling
tonearlyallabo
rtionclients.
Providerstraining
resultedinincreased,
andpo
ssiblymoreeffective,discussio
nsabou
tcontraceptionwith
abortionclients.
Morethan
80%of
post-abo
rtionclients
expressedno
ton
lyan
intentionto
use
medicalcontraceptionbu
thad
identified
theirm
etho
dof
choice.Finding
ssugg
est
thatcertainwom
enconceive
againsoon
afteranabortionprocedureandaremore
likelyto
abortag
ainrather
than
tryto
preventthe
unwantedpregnancy.Ab
ortion
iswidelyavailableandeasilyaccessible,
reducing
theneed
forw
omen
topractice
consistentand
effectivecontraception,but
mostw
omen
saythatthey
wouldprefer
topreventu
nwantedpregnanciesthrough
theuseof
mod
erncontraceptionho
wever
theseareeither
tooexpe
nsiveor
repo
rted
lyfaildu
eto
poor
quality.
(Dod
ge,H
aide
r&Hacker2012)
[56]
Medicalandsurgicalabortion:USA
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
simulated
patient
calls
toservices
inthe5mostand
6leastabortionrestrictive
states
usingasurvey
142teleph
onecalls
were
madeto
48no
n-provider
facilities;46
facilitieswere
contacted3tim
esand2
werecontactedtw
ice
Todeterm
inethequ
ality
andqu
antity
ofreferralsforabo
rtion
services
from
reprod
uctivehealth
carefacilitiesthat
dono
tprovide
abortionservices.
45.8%of
callresultedinadirectreferral,
19.0%resultedinan
indirectreferral,8.5%
resultedinan
inapprop
riate
referraland
26.8%resultedinno
referral.Facilitiesin
leastrestrictivestates
weresig
nificantly
morelikelyto
provideunprom
pted
direct
referrals(p=0.006)andsig
nificantly
less
likelyto
provideno
referral(p<0.001)than
facilitiesinmostrestrictivestates,tho
ugh
thesedifferences
disapp
earedafter
prom
ptingthestaffm
embertoprovidea
referral.
(Doran
&Hornibroo
k2014)[22]
Surgicalabortio
n:New
South
Wales,A
ustralia
Qualitativede
scrip
tive
13ruralw
omen
who
had
anearly
surgicalabortio
n5mon
thsto
15years’prior
Toidentifyfactorsthatwom
enexperienceinrelationto
theirability
toaccessan
abortionserviceand
follow-upcare
Themainbarrierruralw
omen
experienced
was
travellin
grelativelylong
distancesto
accessan
abortionclinicbecauseof
lack
ofservices
intheirlocalarea.W
omen
with
limitedfinancialresourcesneeded
tobo
rrowmon
eyforthe
procedureand
associated
costsof
traveland
accommod
ation.Wom
en’sHealth
Centres
providearang
eof
supp
ortand
referral
inform
ation.Lack
ofintegrated
carewas
repo
rted.
(Esenet
al.2006)
[43]
Med
icalandsurgicalabortio
n:TO
PclinicSouthTyne
side
Foun
datio
nTrust,EnglandUK
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
prospe
ctivesurvey
and
exam
inationof
case
notes
340wom
enrequ
estin
gterm
inationof
preg
nancy
seen
attheclinicin
2003
Toevaluate
theterm
inationof
pregnancyserviceinSouth
Tynesid
einclud
ingou
rcom
pliance
with
RoyalCollege
ofObstetricians
Thenu
mbero
freferralsrepresented
one-fifth
ofallbirths
inou
runitdu
ring
thestud
yperiod.Teenagerswerethe
largestsinglegrou
pof
wom
enrequ
esting
term
inationof
pregnancyandthemajority
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 Page 7 of 23
Table
3Summaryof
allp
apersinclud
edin
thereview
(Con
tinued)
andGynaecologiststerm
inationof
pregnancygu
idelines
werenu
lliparou
s.Therewere85
wom
enwho
wereseekingarepeatterm
inationof
pregnancy.TheRC
OGminimum
referral
standard
was
met
in80
%of
cases.A
good
numbero
fwom
enwereun
sureof
theirm
enstrualdatesandon
ly5%had
used
emergencycontraception.Atotalof
96%wereeitherno
tusin
gcontraception,
usingco
ndom
sor
taking
oral
contraceptiv
esirreg
ularly.A
totalo
f50
%of
thewom
enattend
edho
spita
lwitho
utaCertificateAbeing
completedbythereferring
practition
er.Surgical
term
inationwas
preferred
over
med
ical
term
inationin
thecoho
rtof
wom
enwho
couldexercise
achoice.
(Finnie,Foy&
Mathe
r2006)
[44]
Med
icalandsurgicalabortio
n:SouthDurham
intheNorth
Eastof
England,
UK
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
survey
andreview
edthe
case
notesof
wom
en
Wom
enattend
ingtwo
fertilitycontrolclinicsgeneral
practitionerswho
referred
wom
ento
theseclinics
Toiden
tifyservice-relatedde
lays
andbarriersfacedby
wom
enseekingabortio
ncare
Of210wom
ensurveyed
,132
(63%)
respon
ded.
Of1
07referred
byGPs,16
(15%)h
adto
makeasecond
appo
intm
ent
with
anotherG
Pwilling
toreferthem
and
34(32%)w
aitedtwoor
moredays
toreceiveada
tefortheirho
spital
appo
intm
ent.Th
enatio
nalstand
ard
waitin
gtim
eof
3weeks
from
first
appo
intm
entwith
thereferringdo
ctor
totheprocedurewas
achieved
for5
6/127
wom
en(44%;95%CI,35–53).Wom
enratedglob
alsatisfaction,provision
ofinform
ationandstaffinteractionmore
high
lyinsecond
arythan
primarycare.O
f170GPs
surveyed,140
(82%)respo
nded;
33(24%)con
sidered
them
selves
‘broadly
anti-abortio
n’.
(Graham,
Jayade
va&
Guthrie2010)
[45]
Med
icalandsurgicalabortio
n:Hulland
EastRiding
hospitals
inYo
rkshire,Eng
land
UK
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
Aretrospe
ctiveauditof
facilitydata
8,476med
icalor
surgical
indu
cedabortio
nsun
dertaken
at14
weeks’
gestationor
unde
r
Toassess
theeffectiven
essof
anintegrated
care
pathway
for
deliveryof
eviden
ce-based
practicein
abortio
ncare.
100wom
enwerere-adm
itted
into
the
gynaecolog
icalwards
ofho
spitals.
Readmissionrate
was
1.2%.The
ICP
show
edthat97
%of
wom
enhad
chlamydiascreeningpriortotheabortio
n;allw
omen
hadacontraceptivediscussio
nand43
%leftusingalong
-acting
reversiblemetho
dof
contraception
(LARC
).How
ever,dataou
tsidethecare
pathway
was
notdo
cumented,andhence
thestandard
ofcare
givenon
readmission
was
difficultto
locate
andvariableinqu
ality.
(Grin
dlay,Lane&
Grossman
2013)
[57]
Med
icalabortio
n:Planne
dParentho
odclinicsUSA
Qualitativein-dep
thinterviewsthem
atically
analysed
25wom
enreceivingmedical
abortionservices
(20telemedicine
patientsand5in-personpatients)
and15
clinicstaff.
Toevaluatepatients’andproviders’
experiences
with
telemedicine
provision
ofmedicalabortion.
Patientsandproviderscitedadvantages
oftelemed
icine,includ
ingde
creased
travelforpatientsandph
ysicians
and
greateravailabilityof
locatio
nsand
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 Page 8 of 23
Table
3Summaryof
allp
apersinclud
edin
thereview
(Con
tinued)
appo
intm
enttim
escomparedwith
in-personprovision.Overall,patients
werepo
sitiveor
indifferent
abou
thaving
theconversatio
nwith
thedo
ctor
take
placeviatelemed
icine,with
most
repo
rtingitfeltprivate/secure
andin
somecaseseven
morecomfortab
lethan
anin-personvisit.How
ever,o
ther
wom
enpreferredbe
ingin
thesame
room
with
theph
ysician,
highlighting
theim
portance
ofinform
ingwom
enab
outtheirop
tions
sothey
canchoo
setheirpreferredservicemod
ality.
(Grossman
etal.
2011)[58]
Med
icalabortio
n:Planne
dParentho
odaffiliate
inIowa
USA
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
prospectiveclinicalcoho
rtstud
yandself-administered
survey
Of578en
rolledparticipants,
follow-updata
wereob
tained
for223telemed
icinepatients
and226face-to-face
patients.
Toestim
atetheeffectiven
essand
acceptability
oftelemed
icine
provisionof
early
med
icalabortio
ncomparedwith
provisionwith
aface-to-face
physicianvisit
99%
oftelemed
icinepatientshada
successful
abortio
nwas
for(95%
confiden
ceinterval[CI]96–100
%)a
nd97
%forface-to-face
patients(95%
CI
94–99%).91
%of
allp
articipantswere
verysatisfiedwith
theirabo
rtion
,althou
ghinmultivariableanalysis,telemedicine
patientshadhigh
erod
dsof
saying
they
wou
ldrecommendtheserviceto
afriend
comparedwith
face-to
-face
patients(odd
sratio,1.72;95
%CI1.26–2.34).25%of
telemedicinepatientssaidthey
wou
ldhave
preferredbeinginthesameroom
with
thedo
ctor.You
ngerage,
(Grossman
etal.
2013)[59]
Med
icalabortio
n:Planne
dParentho
odaffiliate
inIowa
USA
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
Review
ofIowavital
statistic
data
andbilling
data
from
theclinic
system
17956abortio
nen
coun
ters
2yearspriorto
andafterthe
introd
uctio
nof
telemed
icine
inJune
2008
Toassesstheeffectof
atelemedicine
mod
elprovidingmedicalabortion
onservicedeliveryinaclinicsystem
Theabortio
nrate
decreasedin
Iowa
aftertelemed
icineintrod
uctio
n,andthe
prop
ortio
nof
abortio
nsin
theclinics
that
weremed
icalincreasedfro
m46
%to
54%.A
fter
telemed
icinewas
introd
uced
,and
with
adjustmen
tfor
othe
rfactors,clinicpatientshad
increasedod
dsof
obtainingbo
thmed
icalabortio
nandabortio
nbe
fore
13weeks’g
estatio
n.Alth
ough
distance
travelledto
theclinicde
creasedon
lyslightly,w
omen
livingfarthe
rthan
50milesfro
mthene
arestclinicofferin
gsurgicalabortio
nweremorelikelyto
obtain
anabortio
naftertelemed
icine
introd
uctio
n.
(Gup
ta&
Kapw
epwe
2007)[46]
Med
icalabortio
n:Waltham
Forestin
England,
UK.
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
Aretrospe
ctiveauditof
facilitydata
1,257abortio
nswere
unde
rtaken
inWaltham
Forestin
2004/5
Toevaluate
ane
wlyestablishe
dservicewith
anNGO
A92
%completed
abortio
nou
tcom
ewas
achieved
.58/63
completed
EMA;
5/63
failedEM
A.
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 Page 9 of 23
Table
3Summaryof
allp
apersinclud
edin
thereview
(Con
tinued)
(Ham
odaet
al.
2005)[47]
Surgicalabortion:Ab
erdeen
RoyalInfirm
ary,National
Health
Servicesetting
.Scotland
UK
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
prospe
ctiveclinicalstud
yandsurvey
56wom
enTo
assessthefeasibility,acceptability
andefficacyof
MVA
underlocal
anaesthesia
forterminationof
pregnancyup
to63
days’
gestation
Themean(SD)ge
stationwas
50(9.4)
days.A
totalo
f55/56(98%)wom
enhadasuccessful
proced
ureanddidno
trequ
ireanyfurthe
rsurgicalor
med
ical
treatm
ent.Fifty-five(98%)w
omen
were
satisfiedwith
theproced
ure,48
(86%)
said
they
wou
ldrecommen
ditto
afrien
dand45
(80%)saidthey
wou
ldhave
thesamemetho
dagainin
the
future.A
nxiety
levels,asreflected
bythe
visualanalog
uescales,sho
wed
asig
nificant
fallin
anxietyscores
followingthe
proced
ure(p<0.01).
(Jon
es&Jerm
an2013)[60]
Med
icalandsurgical
abortio
n:AllUSstates
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
natio
nalsam
pleof
8,338
abortio
npatients
Toassess
how
farabortio
npatientstravelledto
aprovider
in2008
andwhich
grou
pswere
morelikelyto
travelfarthe
r
In2008,w
omen
travelledameandistance
of30
milesforabortio
ncare
services,w
ithamed
ianof
15miles.Sixty-sevenpe
rcen
tof
patientstravelledless
than
25miles,
andsixpe
rcen
ttravelledmorethan
100miles.Con
trollingforothe
rfactors,
wom
enwho
lived
inastatewith
a24-h
waitin
gpe
riod,
wom
enob
tainingsecond
trim
esterabortio
ns,tho
sewho
crossed
statelines,and
,inparticular,ruralwom
enweremorelikelyto
travelgreaterdistances
relativeto
theircoun
terparts.W
omen
ofcolour
wereless
likelyto
travellong
distancescomparedto
non-Hispanicwhite
wom
en.
(Kim
port,C
ockrill
&Weitz2012)
[61]
Medicalandsurgicalabortion:
threeabortionclinicslocated
intheMidwestand
southUSA
Qualitative:them
atic
analysis
41wom
enwho
received
anabortio
nTo
understand
impactsof
abortion
clinicstructures
andprocesses
Theprocessesandstructures
oftheabortio
nclinicnecessitatedby
therealities
ofantiabo
rtionho
stilitieslead
somewom
ento
reactn
egativelyto
theclinicexperience
inwaysconsistentwith
thesocialmythof
theabortio
nclinic.Staffinteractions
can
mitigate
oralleviatetheseexperiences.
(Lipp2009)[48]
Med
icalandsurgical
abortio
n:NationalH
ealth
ServiceTrustsin
Wales,U
K
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
survey
AllNationalH
ealth
Service
Trusts
Toestablishcurren
tprovisionin
term
inationof
preg
nancy
Inthenine
Trustspe
rform
ingabortio
ns,
med
icalabortio
nsaccoun
tedfor57
%andsurgicalabortio
nsfor43
%.D
octors
intraining
wereinvolved
insixTrusts.A
llbu
ton
eTrustcompliedwith
referraltim
es.
Five
Trustsprovided
ade
dicatedclinic.
Writteninform
ationprovided
priorto
abortio
nvariedin
accessibility
andqu
ality.
Cho
iceof
abortio
nwith
inge
stationband
swas
limitedin
someTrustswith
someon
lyprovidingmed
icalterm
ination.Essential
abortio
naftercarewas
perfo
rmed
byTrusts,
whe
reas
follow-upandcoun
selling
were
less
compreh
ensive.
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 Page 10 of 23
Table
3Summaryof
allp
apersinclud
edin
thereview
(Con
tinued)
(Mason
2005)
[49]
Med
icalandsurgical
abortio
n:tw
oPrim
ary
CareTruststo
aNational
Health
Service-fund
edabortio
nclinicin
theNorth
Westof
England
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
survey
allclinicattend
eesfro
mwithin
thestud
yarea
duringa
6-mon
thperiod
Toinvestigatethereferralprocess
90%
ofthewom
enwerereferred
directly
from
thefirsthe
alth
profession
althey
consultedto
theabortionclinic.Fivepercent
ofthewom
enwereeither
referre
dto
anotherh
ealth
professio
nalorn
otreferre
danyw
here.Twelve
percentof
thewom
enhadto
waitlong
erthan
the3weeks
recommendedby
theRo
yalC
ollege
ofObstetricians
andGynaecologistsgu
ideline.
Inaminority
ofcasesthiswaitextend
edup
to7weeks.H
owever,m
ostwom
enwere
satisfiedwith
theleng
thof
wait,thehealth
professio
naltheyconsultedwith
and,in
particular,the
care
they
received
atthe
abortionclinicitself.
(McKay
&Ru
therford
2013)
[50]
Medicalabortion:Peterborou
ghCityHospital,UK,
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
survey
at24
hand
2weeks
followingthe
proced
ure
127wom
enTo
assess
wom
en’s
satisfaction
with
theho
memed
icalabortio
nservice.
At24
h,over
95%of
wom
enwho
respon
ded,agreed
orstrong
lyagreed
thatthey
feltprepared
forthe
painand
bleeding
thatthey
experienced
atho
me.
At2weeks,97.3%of
respon
dentsfelt
thatthey
hadhadenou
ghinform
ation
andknew
whatto
expect,and
were
thereforesatisfiedwith
theprocedure.
Only15
%of
wom
enwerelostto
clinical
follow-upat2weeks.The
majority
ofwom
enaresatisfiedwith
theho
memedical
abortionservice.Thesehigh
satisfaction
ratesaremaintainedat2weeks.Telepho
nefollow-up2weeksafterthe
abortionwas
safeandeffective.
(Nickson
,Smith
&Shelley2006)
[23]
Med
icalandsurgical
abortio
nVictoria,A
ustralia
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
multi-centre,cross-
sectionalo
bservatio
nal
stud
yusingasurvey
Allwom
enaccessingprivate
services
over
ape
riodof
12weeks.
Toinvestigatetheextent
andcost
oftravelun
dertaken
bywom
enaccessingTO
Pservices.
1,244Australianresid
entrespo
ndentswho
resid
edinVictoria,9.3%travelledmore
than
100km
toaccessservices.Teenagers
were2.5tim
esmorelikelythan
other
respon
dentsto
travelfurtherthan
100
kilometres(km)(18.2%comparedwith
7.8%,O
R=2.5,95
%CI1.5–4.2,p<0.001).
Wom
enoriginated
from
allA
ustralianStates
andTerritoriesexcept
SouthAu
stralia
and
13.7%werefro
mStatisticalDivision
sother
than
Melbo
urne.M
orethan
one-third
ofrespon
dents(41.3%)cho
setheirclinic
becausethey
werereferredby
ado
ctor
orgeneralpractition
er.
(Norman,H
estrin
&Dueck
2014)
[67]
Medicalandsurgicalabortion:
British
ColumbiaWom
en’s
Hospitaland
Health
Centre,
Canada
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
Aretrospe
ctiveauditof
calls
1998–2008teleph
onecalls
Toreview
thetoll-fre
epreg
nancy
optio
nsserviceprovisionmod
elforcoun
selling
andreferral
Over2000wom
enannu
allyaccessservice
viathePO
Sline,networks
ofcareproviders
areestablish
edandlinkedto
centralsup
port,
andcentralprogram
plannersreceivetim
ely
inform
ationon
newservicegaps
andaccess
barriers.
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 Page 11 of 23
Table
3Summaryof
allp
apersinclud
edin
thereview
(Con
tinued)
(Oliveras,Larsen
&David
2005)
[63]
Medicalandsurgicalabortion:
Hospitalsinthreecitiesin
Perm
,Berezniki,Veliky
Novgo
rodRussia
Quantitativede
scrip
tive
second
aryanalysisof
data
collected
inasurvey
489abortio
nclients
Toexploreclient
satisfaction
with
abortio
ncare
Client
characteristics,ingeneral,didno
taffect
overallsatisfactionthou
ghtherewere
significantd
ifferencesinoverallsatisfactionfor
unmarriedversus
marriedwom
en(OR=0·29,
CI=0·13,0·63).Similarly,m
ostcharacteristics
oftheabortionvisit
wereno
trelated
toclient
satisfaction,although
wom
enwho
were
awakeforthe
procedurewerelesslikelyto
besatisfied(OR=0·37,CI=0·16,0·89).
Inform
ationprovided
toabortionclientsabout
self-carewas
themostimpo
rtant
predictoro
foverallsatisfactionforabo
rtion
clients
(OR=3·55,CI=1·64,7·69)
(Pillaiet
al.2015)
[51]
Surgicalabortio
n:NHS
SexualHealth
Service,UK
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
Aretrospe
ctiveauditof
facilitydata
1681
wom
enTo
assess
theapplicability,
acceptabilityandcostimplications
ofintro
ducing
MVA
with
local
anaesthesia
forfullyconscious
first-trimesterterminationof
pregnancy
MVA
was
chosen
by305/1681
potentially
eligiblewom
en.Fortypercenth
adthe
procedureon
thedaythey
attend
edfor
assessment.79
%gave
apainscoreof
3or
lessou
tof10.Co
mplications
occurre
din
sixcases(2%);theseinclud
edcervical
rigidity,a
false
passage,retained
prod
ucts
ofconceptio
n,bleeding
(morethan
200ml)
andon
eallergicreaction.Eigh
typercentof
wom
enchoseto
commence
along
-acting
reversiblecontraception(LARC
)metho
dat
thetim
eof
MVA
.Operatingtheatre
utilisatio
nwas
redu
cedby
oneterm
ination
listperw
eekandcostsaving
sof
arou
nd£60000perann
umwererealise
d.
(Sharm
a&
Guthrie2006)
[52]
Surgicalabortio
n:Wom
enandCh
ildren’sHospital,Hull
RoyalInfirm
ary,Hull,UK
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
Aprospe
ctiveauditof
facilitydata
andstaff
survey
12wom
en<10
weeks’
gestationat
thetim
eof
term
ination,February–
March
2004,23staff
Toevaluate
nurseledteleph
one
bookingserviceandlocal
anaesthetic
outpatient
surgical
term
inationof
pregnancy
Dem
andfro
mreferre
rsforthe
teleph
one
bookingclinicwas
greaterthancouldbe
accommod
ated
bytheservice.Teleph
one
consultatio
nwas
popu
larw
ithpatientsas
itwas
carriedou
tattheircon
venience
intheirh
omes,and
with
staffasitredu
ced
clinicassessmenttim
e.Somestaffm
embers
feltthatconsultin
gover
theteleph
one
affected
theirassessm
entof
thepatient’s
emotionalstatus.Outpatient
LA-STO
Pseem
edwellacceptedby
both
staffand
patientsas
itofferedpatientsaconvenient
andsafemetho
dof
early
abortion.A
preliminarycostingindicatedanetsaving
plus
increasedservicecapacity.
(Silva&McN
eill
2008)[64]
Med
icalandsurgicalabortio
n:throug
hout
New
Zealand
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
analysisof
Cen
susdata
andStatisticsNZdata,
calculationof
distances
from
site
ofreferral
Nationw
ideTO
Pservice
inform
ationfro
m2006
Toassessgeog
raph
icaccessibility
tofirsttrimesterterminationof
pregnancy
Wom
enwho
liveinregion
sthatdo
noto
ffer
localTOPservices
musttravelonaverage
221km
toaccessTO
Pservices.Thisequates
toan
averagereturn-tripdistance
of442km
.Threeof
thefiveregion
sthatdo
noth
ave
localTOPservices
availablehave
ahigh
erthan
averageprop
ortionof
Maoripo
pulation
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 Page 12 of 23
Table
3Summaryof
allp
apersinclud
edin
thereview
(Con
tinued)
(Silva,McN
eill&
Ashton2011)
[65]
Med
icalandsurgicalabortio
n:Nineof
atotalo
f13
firsttrim
ester
clinicsthroug
hout
New
Zealand
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
Aprospe
ctiveauditof
facilitydata
andsurvey
ofwom
en
2,950patientsattend
ing
nine
abortio
nclinics
betw
eenFebruary
and
May
2000
Toiden
tifythefactorsaffecting
thetim
elinessof
services
infirst
trim
esterabortio
nservice
Wom
enwho
wentto
privateclinichad
asig
nificantly
shorterd
elay
comparedto
publicclinics.Co
ntrolling
forclinictype,
wom
enwho
wenttoclinicsthatoffered
medicalabortio
nsor
clinicsthatoffered
singledayservices
experienced
lessdelay.
Also
,wom
enwho
hadmorethan
one
visit
with
theirreferringdo
ctor
experienced
agreaterd
elay
than
thosewho
hadasin
gle
visit.The
earlier
inpregnancywom
ensoug
htservices
thelong
erthedelay.
Wom
en’sdecisio
n-makingdidno
thave
asig
nificanteffecton
delay.
(Sno
ok&Silva
2013)[66]
Med
icalandsurgicalabortio
n:commun
ity-based
services
ina
high
-dep
rivationdistricthe
alth
boardNew
Zealand
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
Aprospe
ctiveauditof
facilitydata
180wom
enwho
had
anabortio
nin
2010
Tode
scrib
etheservices
develope
dandassess
safety
andtim
elinessforthefirstyear
ofservice.
Eigh
ty-twopercentof
locally
provided
abortions
in2010
weremedicalabortio
ns,
completed
onaveragelessthan
2days
after
referralto
theservice.One
percento
fpatientsexperienced
haem
orrhagingpo
stabortion,and4%hadretained
prod
ucts.
Theseratesarewith
inaccepted
standards
foranabortionservice.
(Tup
per&
And
rews2007)
[53]
Med
icalabortio
n:Morecam
beBayPrim
aryCareTrustUK
Quantitativede
scrip
tive:
Aprospe
ctiveauditof
facilitydata
171wom
enreferred
Torepo
rton
settingup
and
runn
ingane
wou
tpatient
service
forearly
med
icalterm
ination
unde
r7weeks’g
estatio
n.
Of171patientsreferred
inthefirstyear,
148wereofferedan
appo
intm
entand
100wom
encompleted
outpatient
treatm
entformed
icalterm
inationun
der
7weeks’g
estatio
n
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 Page 13 of 23
Other studies in the review identified the impact ofthe health workforce on the availability of abortion ser-vices. A shortage of doctors, particularly female doctorswho were willing to perform abortions was noted bystaff of women’s health centres in rural Australia. Inaddition, staff cited a shortage of rural general practi-tioners as impacting upon the availability of referral pointsand follow up care [22]. A study of GPs (No = 126) in thenorth east of England UK found that approximately one-third surveyed did not provide on-site pregnancy testing(52; 37 %) and believed they had insufficient informationabout abortion services (43; 32 %) [44]. It is suggested thatthese factors affected service availability.One study from NZ showed that a newly established
community-based abortion clinic in one district healthboard (DHB) developed to provide local service provisionand prevent out-of-region referrals was able to contribute
to addressing the need for increased availability. Of the180 women from the DHB who had an abortion in2010, 81 % (n = 145) had an abortion locally, while theremaining 19 % went outside the region for the service[66]. However, service availability did not appear to beequitable as three of the five regions that did not haveabortion services were found to have a higher thanaverage proportion of a largely disadvantaged IndigenousMaori population.
AccessibilityTwo studies in the review investigated the use of technol-ogy to address accessibility issues, in particular to elimin-ate travelling time and overcome geographical barriers toabortion services. Qualitative interviews with women whoselected a MTOP telemedicine clinic stated that they didso due to logistical concerns as they were unable to access
Table 4 Access Dimensions Covered across papers in the review
Availability Accessibility Affordability Adequacy Acceptability Quality
(Astle, Cameron & Johnstone 2012) [54] √
(Blum et al. 2012) [55] √
(Cameron et al. 2010) [41] √ √
(Cameron et al. 2012) [42] √
(David et al. 2007) [62] √ √
(Dodge, Haider & Hacker 2012) [56] √
(Doran & Hornibrook 2014) [22] √ √ √ √
(Esen et al. 2006) [43] √ √
(Finnie, Foy & Mather 2006) [44] √ √ √
(Graham, Jayadeva & Guthrie 2010) [45] √
(Grindlay, Lane & Grossman 2013) [57] √ √ √ √ √
(Grossman et al. 2011) [58] √ √
(Grossman et al. 2013) [59] √ √
(Gupta & Kapwepwe 2007) [46] √ √
(Hamoda et al. 2005) [47] √ √
(Jones & Jerman 2013) [60] √
(Kimport, Cockrill & Weitz 2012) [61] √ √ √
(Lipp 2009) [48] √ √
(Mason 2005) [49] √
(McKay & Rutherford 2013) [50] √
(Nickson, Smith & Shelley 2006) [23] √ √ √
(Norman, Hestrin & Dueck 2014) [67] √ √ √
(Oliveras, Larsen & David 2005) [63] √ √
(Pillai et al. 2015) [51] √ √
(Sharma & Guthrie 2006) [52] √ √ √
(Silva & McNeill 2008) [64] √
(Silva, McNeill & Ashton 2011) [65] √
(Snook & Silva 2013) [66] √ √ √
(Tupper & Andrews 2007) [53] √ √ √
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 Page 14 of 23
Table 5 Approach to abortion service, outcomes, access dimension and perspective
Aspect of abortion service under study Outcome measures Supply and/or demandperspective
Outpatient/home based/early medicaldischarge (MTOP)
(Astle, Cameron & Johnstone2012) [54]
Unscheduled re-attendance rates, contraceptionprovision at discharge rate
Supply
(Cameron et al. 2010) [41] Women’s satisfaction Demand
(McKay & Rutherford2013) [50]
Women’s satisfaction Demand
(Tupper & Andrews 2007) [53] Referral rates, completion rates Supply
(Blum et al. 2012) [55] Home-based follow up using semiquantitative pregnancy test
Sensitivity and specificity of a pregnancy testand women’s usability
Supply–demand
(Cameron et al. 2012) [42] Home-based follow up using nurse-ledtelephone calls
follow-up rates, efficacy for detecting ongoingpregnancies and women’s satisfaction
Supply–demand
In patient/clinic based telemedicine(MTOP)
(Grindlay, Lane & Grossman2013) [57]
Women and staff experience and satisfaction Demand
(Grossman et al. 2011) [58] Completion rates, women’s satisfaction,preferences and recommendations
Demand
(Grossman et al. 2013) [59] Abortion rates, distance women travelled Supply–demand
Outpatient STOP
(Doran & Hornibrook2014) [22]
Outpatient STOP Experience of access to facility Demand
(Hamoda et al. 2005) [47] MVA under local anaesthesia Completion rates, satisfaction, anxiety levels Supply–demand
(Pillai et al. 2015) [51] MVA under local anaesthesia Completion rates, Pain, complications,contraception uptake, cost
Supply–demand
(Sharma & Guthrie 2006) [52] MVA under local anaesthesia andtelephone booking service
Number abortion completions, of telephoneconsultations, referrals, and staff satisfaction
Supply
Abortion care components
(Lipp 2009) [48] STOP and MTOP services Service provision types Supply
(Oliveras, Larsen & David2005) [63]
MVA STOP, MSTOP, dilation and curettage,post-abortion family planning counselling
Women’s satisfaction Demand
(David et al. 2007) [62] Post abortion care program Contraception counselling delivered Supply
Care delivery program type
(Graham, Jayadeva & Guthrie2010) [45]
Integrated care pathway, MTOP and STOP Re-admission rate, contraception advicereceived and uptake
Supply
Referral, booking and counselling
(Dodge, Haider & Hacker2012) [56]
Referral advice Referral rates Supply
(Esen et al. 2006) [43] Referral process Waiting times Supply
(Finnie, Foy & Mather2006) [44]
Referral process Waiting times within the pathway to inducedabortion, women’s rating of care, GPs’ attitudesand self-reported practice
Supply–demand
(Mason 2005) [49] Public service referral process Length of wait, number of professionals involved,women’s satisfaction
Supply–demand
(Norman, Hestrin & Dueck2014) [67]
Toll free options service provision Use rate Supply
Facility type
(Gupta & Kapwepwe2007) [46]
NGO Completion rates Supply
(Jones & Jerman 2013) [60] Public and private clinics Distance travelled Supply
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 Page 15 of 23
a clinic close by even if they preferred to do so [57].Women also stated that this saved them time, the stress ofdriving to a facility and the need to take time off work.The researchers found that women living more than 80km from the closest facility that offered STOP were morelikely to obtain an abortion after the introduction of tele-medicine [58, 59].Accessibility in the studies reviewed is manly discussed
in relation to constraints. The time and travel distancerequired to access abortion services is examined in anumber of studies included in the review with accessibil-ity for rural women and adolescents more disadvantagedaccording to three papers. The statistical model in Joneset al. US study showed that having an early abortion wasnot associated with increased travel but that womenwho lived in rural areas and those who lived in a statewith a 24-h waiting period were more likely to experi-ence increased travel [60]. In Australia, Nickson foundthat there were limited rural services and adolescentswere 2.5 times more likely than other women to travelmore than 100 km (18.2 % compared with 7.8 %, OR = 2.5,95 % CI 1.5–4.2, p < 0.001) [23]. Interstate travel in orderto access an abortion was noted in two Australian studies[22, 23] with public transport largely unavailable [22].A qualitative study of women’s experiences of three
abortion clinics in the US noted that women sometimesmade a decision to travel a greater distance to specificclinics to avoid protesters and the associated stress [61].Avoiding protesters was also noted by women as onereason for selecting a particular clinic in an Australianhowever, most women selected the clinic on where theyobtained their abortion on proximity to their place ofresidence [23].Several studies were included in the review revealed is-
sues regarding referral and the accessibility of services.Dodge et al. [56] studied referral to abortion services inAmerica from staff at facilities that did not provide abor-tion showing that less than half of the women receiveddirect referrals. Women who did not prompt the stafffor a referral during a call to facilities in States with lessrestrictive abortion laws were significantly more likely to
be provided with direct referrals (p = 0.006) than womenwho called facilities in more restrictive states. Accessibilitywas also hampered according to women in an Australianstudy by slow referrals from health providers [22]. In theUK it was found that referral for abortion was mostly fromgeneral practitioner doctors (GP) [44]. However, a reviewof clinic records in one area in the UK shows that abouthalf of the patients were referred without a Certificate “A”being completed by the referring GP, the reasons for thisin some cases was due to issues doctors had with abortionand their conscientious objection to TOP. It was sug-gested that this may impact upon the speed at whichwomen are able to obtain and abortion [43]. Women inNZ who had more than one visit from their referring doc-tor also experienced a longer delay to receive an abortionthan those who had a single visit [65].Timeliness of referral was also examined in studies in
relation to established recommendations from the UKRoyal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG).Finnie et al. found that referral targets were largely achievedwith 52% of women seen within 48 h of making an appoint-ment [44]. In addition, the majority (97 %) of women hadabortion procedures within 14 days of clinic appointments[44]. Mason’s study found that twelve percent of thewomen had to wait longer than the 3 weeks, exceeding theRCOG’s recommendations regarding referral [49]. Thesurvey of GPs found they referred girls under 16 yearswho requested an abortion with a parent or guardian[44]. Fewer (72; 52 %) reported that would refer un-accompanied girls under 16.Services factors were found to affect the speed at which
women were able to gain an abortion in NZ however therationale for this is not clear. Silva et al. found that womenwho obtained their abortion from a private clinic had asignificantly shorter delay compared to those whoattended public clinics. A shorter delay was also experi-enced by women who received care from facilities thatprovided MTOP or single day services and for thosewomen with a lower gestational age [65]. Another NZstudy also found that women choosing MTOP had ashorter wait than those obtaining a STOP [66].
Table 5 Approach to abortion service, outcomes, access dimension and perspective (Continued)
(Kimport, Cockrill & Weitz2012) [61]
Public and private clinics Experience of facility structure and process Demand
(Nickson, Smith & Shelley2006) [23]
Private services Distance travelled, money and time expendedundertaking travel, and reasons women choseparticular clinics
Supply–demand
(Silva & McNeill 2008) [64] Public and private clinics Number of services, return trip drivingdistance
Supply
(Silva, McNeill & Ashton2011) [65]
Public and private clinics offeringMTOP vs single day services
Timeliness Supply
(Snook & Silva 2013) [66] Community based services Safety and timeliness Supply
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 Page 16 of 23
AffordabilitySome of the studies included in this review examinedcosts from the perspective of the health system, healthprofessionals and the individual women. In one Englishprimary health care trust Tupper et al. found that a newMTOP service contributed towards cost savings in theUK National Health Service (NHS) budget [53]. The au-thors compare the cost of their services with those of the‘Payment by Results’ national tariff of fixed prices that re-flect national average prices for hospital procedures. Costsper case in the new service are outlined as £157 GBP atset up which was estimated to be £85 GBP within 5 yearsof operation. This compares favourably to the £498 ‘Pay-ment by Results’ per case on for surgical termination and£423 for medical termination.A study undertaken in a different English primary
health care trust a year earlier noted that the cost of aMTOP or a STOP (day case) ranged from £462 to £578per patient [52]. Sharma et al. study of a pilot local an-aesthetic outpatient STOP service found that the costcould be reduced to £366 per patient. However, if thisinvolved outpatient consultation the cost was £217 perpatient which could be further reduced to £177 if thenurse telephone clinic was used. The nurse telephoneclinic reduced the time needed by the doctor to assesseach patient, which increased the number of patientsthat could be seen per clinic. Recent research in the UKalso examining a local anaesthetic outpatient STOP ser-vice found that a cost savings was made of approximately£60000 per year and that the operating theatre use was re-duced by one termination list per week [51].Interviews with American women accessing a MTOP
telemedicine clinic [57] explained that they selected theas it saved them money that they would have had tospend on travel. For some women obtaining a STOP inAustralia was very expensive, particularly rural womenwho in one study said they had borrowed money to covernot only the abortion fee but pay for travel, accommoda-tion and additional childcare costs [22].
AdequacyThe adequacy of abortion services in terms of theorganization of clinics and their hours, of operation,cleanliness and administration processes was the subjectof interest in three studies in the review. Interviews withUS staff and women revealed that the telemedicineMTOP service offered services more frequently and witha wider range of times available to women than clinicbased services. Prior to the telemedicine service staffnoted that women could only see doctors on a particularday of the week or month that they visited the clinic,whereas telemedicine enabled women to schedule theirconsultation any day of the week if needed [57]. Abortionclients from a USAID funded Women and Infant Health
Project who were surveyed in three cities in Russia ratedlevel of comfort and hygiene. Ratings of comfort had thegreatest variation with 41 % of clients rating comfort asgood, 47 % as fair and 11 % as poor. Less than two percent of women rated their satisfaction with hygiene aspoor while 69 % reported satisfaction with hygiene asgood, [63]. Interviews with women obtaining abortionsfrom three clinics in the US described women’s experi-ences of antiabortion protesters outside and the clinics’ se-curity measures in response [61]. The findings show thatboth experiences served to increase women’s feelings ofstigmatisation. Women described being “buzzed in” pass-ing through metal detectors and paying in cash that madethe process seem impersonal and illicit.
AcceptabilityFour of the six papers in this review, that describe theacceptability of services that enable women to terminatetheir pregnancy at home rather than return to the hospitalor clinic after a MTOP, report on women’s acceptability ofthis practice. A survey of 100 women in the UK found thatwomen chose to go home as soon as possible after the pro-cedure (53 %) and to be in the privacy of their own home(47 %). The majority of women did not regard the amountof pain or bleeding to be a considerable issue [41]. Thesefindings concur with another survey of 127 women who re-ported that they were adequately prepared for the amountof bleeding and pain they experienced at home [50].Women in both surveys were satisfied with the procedurewith most women in Cameron et al. research (84 %) statingthey would recommend home medical abortion [41].Blum et al. research in the US examined women’s ac-
ceptability of a test to detect continuing pregnancy athome after their MTOP. The majority of women sur-veyed found the test easy to use with two thirds (58.1 %,n = 190) correctly identifying the need to return to theclinic based on the home test reading measures of serumhuman chorionic gonadotropin being the same or higherthan their baseline level [55].When offered, Cameroon et al. [42] found telephone
follow up and self-performed pregnancy testing aftertheir MTOP was more popular with women in the UKup to 9 weeks gestation than return visits to the hospital(476 out of 619 women or 77 %). Women stated thatthis was more convenient, less stressful and reduced theneed for travel. The majority found the follow up callsfrom nurses re-assuring and would likely recommendthis approach to others. Most women also expressed theirpreference for a low-sensitivity urine pregnancy test at2 weeks after their MTOP (97 %). However, if given achoice the majority indicated a preference for self-assessment without a follow-up phone call (52 %) while43 % stated that they would have been ‘unlikely’ tochoose self-assessment.
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 Page 17 of 23
In contrast to women in the study by Grossman et. al.[58] women in Grindlay et al. research paper [57] reportedthat they were not comfortable with the telemedicine ap-proach to MTOP. These women felt it did not enablethem to access other reproductive health services at thesame time and that they were unsure about the service asit had not been recommended and was unknown by fam-ily and friends. Despite this many women who experi-enced the telemedicine consultation stated that they weresatisfied and comfortable with a video communication asit was already part of their daily lives. Women noted thatremote service provision reduced stigma and embarrass-ment and felt less intimidated. However, others felt thatthey would have preferred having a personal interactionwith a provider and were concerned about privacy issueswith a webcam. Most staff found telemedicine acceptableto deliver to women noting issues with detecting women’sRhesus (RH) status. which led to delays in accessing theservice. National guidelines recommend the administra-tion of anti-D immunoglobulin to Rh (D) negative womenwithin 72 h of an MTOP in order to prevent maternalsensitisation and an adverse effect on a future pregnancy[68, 69]. In the Grindlay et al. study, new providers of tele-medicine based abortion services lacked the capability foron-site testing resulting in additional communication withwomen and third parties in order to establish their Rhstatus prior to the clinic visit.Three studies included in this review included an
examination of women’s acceptability of early STOP ser-vices in particular MVA under local anaesthesia. Onestudy found women experienced little pain with 79 %giving a pain score of 3 or less out of 10 [51]. Womenwere found to recover quickly from their anxiety aftertheir abortion with visual analogue scales, indicating asignificant fall in anxiety scores following the procedure(p < 0.01). [47]. Women were also satisfied with the pro-cedure in both studies. Eighty-six % of surveyed womensaid they would recommend it and 80 % said they wouldhave the same method again in the future [47]. Sharmaet al. survey [52] found that staff perceived the patientsto be satisfied, “reassured” and “relaxed” and that theprovision of a local anaesthesia gave women a choicecompared with a general anaesthesia. Telephone con-sultation was popular with patients according to staff asit was carried out at their convenience in their homes,and with staff as it reduced clinic assessment time. Staffalso noted that the telephone booking service withwomen was acceptable to patients who spent less timein the clinic but that it was more difficult to assess awomen’s emotional state.Abortion clients from a USAID funded project sur-
veyed in three cities in Russia were largely satisfied withservices received from health professionals Informationprovided to abortion clients about self-care was the most
important predictor of overall satisfaction (OR = 3.55,CI = 1.64, 7.69). How much the client paid for the abor-tion did not affect satisfaction with respect to any aspectof care [63]. Despite some women having to wait longerthan the 3 weeks recommended by the RCOG guide-lines, or in a few cases up to 7 weeks, most women saidthey were satisfied with the service they received [49].Women in a survey in the Australian State of Victoriacited the reasons for selecting a private clinic to havetheir abortion including the reputation of the clinic,quality of information received, as well as good staff andservice [23].Rural Australian women described dissatisfaction with
the attitudes of GPs who delayed referral by not providinginformation concerning options for self-referral. Thesewomen stated the need to reduce stigma and negativeattitudes to improve access to abortion [22]. Americanwomen described the impersonal attitudes of staff andthat the denial of support persons for security reasonsadded to the stigmatisation of the experience. Howeverwomen’s satisfaction was heightened by non-judgementalstaff and the presence of a patient advocate [61]. Finnie etal. surveyed women in the UK accessing MTOP andSTOP in the UK who overall rated satisfaction, provisionof information and staff interaction more highly in sec-ondary than primary care. Women noted that their GPsanti-abortion views were made known to them and al-though they were referred were provided with very littleinformation concerning their options [44].
QualityQuality standards for abortion care were noted in severalstudies in relation to professional standards, nationalstandards set by the government and local area healthstandards, as well as women’s views of the standard ofquality care.The standards of the RCOG in the UK were referred
to in comparison with the results in five studies. In thepaper by Essen and colleagues the RCOG minimum re-ferral standard of women seen by a doctor within 2weeks of referral was found to have been met in 80 % ofcases. Of the 340 women in the study 111 patients hadtheir TOP performed within 7 days of their consultationwith a doctor in the hospital which was noted as theRCOG ideal standard [43]. The national RCOG standardwaiting time of 3 weeks from first appointment with thereferring doctor to the procedure was achieved in Finnieet al. study for 56 of 127 women (44 %; 95 % Cl, 35–53)[44]. In an earlier study the numbers were less withtwelve percent of the women having to wait longer thanthe 3 weeks recommended by the RCOG guideline. In aminority of cases this wait extended up to 7 weeks [49].Lipp’s investigation into services in nine Primary HealthTrusts in Wales found that one Trust did not comply
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 Page 18 of 23
with referral times of 3 weeks as per clinical guidelinesdue to service constraints and five of 10 Trusts provideda dedicated assessment clinic as advised for womenrequesting TOP [48]. Lipp et al. also assessed the qualityof written information provided to women prior toabortion in relation to RCOG guidelines that dictatethat verbal information should be supported by writtenimpartial, printed material [70]. Five Trusts includedwritten information that was given to women duringthe initial consultation and on discharge. The informationvaried in both content and presentation and all materialoutlined the risks of complications. Tupper et al. [53] notein their evaluation of a new service that the RCOG stan-dards and competences in providing abortion serviceswere observed but no detail of this is provided. One NZstudy compared their results of MTOP complications withthe standards set by RANZCOG. Complication rateswere very reported to be low and within the RANZCOGstandards [66].National standards were cited in a study from Scotland
in the UK. The authors audit of facility data noted thatNational Health Service (NHS) Quality ImprovementScotland standards for sexual health services, which rec-ommend that at least 60 % of women leave an abortionservice with an effective method of contraception, wasachieved [54].Graham et al. [45] investigated the use of an integrated
care pathway (ICP) in abortion care as a way of incorpor-ating local and national guidelines into everyday practiceand managing clinical risk while meeting the requirementsof clinical governance in two hospitals in the UK. The re-searchers undertook an audit of facility data and foundthat in this context clinical records are a useful tool forhigh quality record-keeping and to ensure that all womenreceive the same standard of pre-assessment care. The in-tegrated care pathway (ICP) approach to the provision ofquality of MTOP and STOP was developed for two hospi-tals in the UK and involved a checklist that included STIscreening, treatment and partner notification, prophylacticantibiotics at time of abortion, provision of contraceptioncounselling and supply. The checklist also includes re-admission investigations such as temperature taking, fullblood counts and ultra sound. The ICP evaluation showedthat 97 % of women had chlamydia screening beforethe abortion; all women had a contraceptive discussionand 43 % left using a long-acting reversible method ofcontraception [45].
DiscussionThis review has identified the dimensions of access tosurgical and medical abortion from, clinic or hospital-outpatient based abortion services, as well as new servicedelivery approaches utilising a remote telemedicine ap-proach. A range of factors, mostly from studies in the UK
and US were found to facilitate improved access to abor-tion. In particular, flexible service delivery approaches thatprovide women with cost effective options and technologybased services. These could provide possibilities for theAustralian health system. However, it is not clear howmany services in Australia provide a choice of MTOP orSTOP with the situation largely dependent upon the willof private services.Services that provided women with the choice of either
MTOP or STOP [53] and the establishment of nurse-ledtelephone consultation and outpatient services for STOP[51, 52] in this review were found to be cost effective, indemand and the uptake high. Home based MTOP withpregnancy testing and telephone follow up was also re-ported to be acceptable to women [41, 42, 50, 55]. MTOPdelivered by telemedicine was reported to have improvedthe availability and timeliness of abortion most womenfound it acceptable, reduced costs to the women andreduced the stress associated with the procedure [57–59].A private company called the Tabbot Foundation inAustralia is trialling the use of video and skype consulta-tions for MTOP that reduces the need for a health servicesvisit except for required tests, or in the case of complica-tions. All of the 303 women involved in the trial at the endof 2015, gave the service a very high rating [71]. MTOPbased telemedicine may, as in the American studies in thisreview, increase the availability of MTOP in Australia, in-cluding for women living in rural and remote settings.This could reduce costs associated with long distancetravel and enable a timelier delivery of MTOP. InAustralia, unlike in the American context, a face to faceclinic visit for telemedicine MTOP is not a requirementbut and women still need to obtain a blood test tocheck their rhesus status and an anti-D immunoglobulininjection if Rh negative [72].The review identified a number of standards, recom-
mendations and targets that provided services and pro-viders with guidance regarding the quality of abortioncare including the UK Department of Health targets [53]and RCOG recommendations regarding referral andwaiting times [43, 44, 49]. The papers in this review alsonoted provider competences outlined by RCOG [53]which include the requirement that women leave anabortion service with appropriate information and an ef-fective method of contraception [54]. These standardsmay provide RANZCOG and the Royal College of GeneralPractitioners with insights to improve practitioner compe-tence in addition to the standards associated with the rateof complications noted in one paper. Targets to reducewaiting times could also be applied nationally in Australia,as well as at State and Territory level, however this wouldbe difficult due to the variability of current serviceprovision. Targets could be applied to public provision butsuch services may not be apparent and available at all
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 Page 19 of 23
public facilities. Assessing progress on targets would re-quire comprehensive and coordinated data collection thatdoes not currently exist across Australia. The collection ofabortion data should be alongside other reproductivehealth indicators and service evaluation. One such ap-proach that might offer guidance are the input, process,outcome and impact indicators recommended by expertsat an International workshop on reproductive health indi-cators and database development [73].Difficulties accessing abortion services were noted for
particular populations in this review, in particular foradolescents and women with limited financial means[22, 23, 60, 66]. Little is known about access to abortionservices for adolescents who face issues of confidentialityand often negative attitudes of providers [74]. In WesternAustralia adolescents have been found to have the highestabortion rates [75] which is likely to reflect rates in otherStates and territories, in line with global figures [76]. Re-search is therefore needed to ensure that the needs of thehighest users of such services are best addressed.Although not mentioned by the research in this re-
view, other studies have noted higher rates of abortionsamong migrant women in HIC [77] who face barrierssuch as poor access to information about contraception,difficulty paying for services, a history of trauma andabuse, and fear of deportation [78]. Sexual and repro-ductive ill health disproportionately affects migrant andrefugee women in Australia and hence is an area of highneed requiring attention [79]. In Australia, significantbarriers have been documented regarding the access ofrefugees and migrants to primary health care [80] andrecommendations for improving access to general practicehave been put forward however, these do not include re-productive health issues such as abortion [81]. Migrantsand refugees may also have different expectations ofabortion based upon their experiences in their countriesof origin. Access for refugees in detention is even morechallenging as demonstrated by a recent case of a Somaliasylum seeker detained by the Australian Government onthe Island of Naru [75].In our review the descriptions of services were largely
public in the UK, NZ, Canada and Russia and private inUS and Australia which reflects current service-deliverymodels in these countries. The model of a public privatepartnership only appeared in one UK-based study [46].This difference dictated the papers focus on affordability.Where the cost was born by the state the discussion fo-cused on health systems savings and efficiency, whilecosts on an individual level featured in the Americanand Australian papers where women largely access ser-vices through private clinics. We found little informationconcerning ways to best support women from lowersocio economic backgrounds with payment if serviceswere unavailable in the public system. While in Australia
the universal health system Medicare reimburses costsfor STOP and MTOP services, the lack of access throughthe public system in most states and territories means thatwomen need to access private services leading to an out ofpocket gap payment, which can be prohibitive for somewomen.Apart from location of services, often concentrated in
urban areas, availability is also determined by availabilityof trained personnel. Staff shortages were noted in pa-pers in our review [22, 53] in the UK and Australia, aswell as low knowledge about abortion [44]. Gynaecologyand general practice training pathways are variable insome countries [82] and may not include abortionprovision. Therefore gynaecologists and GPs must seekadditional training to become STOP or MTOP providers,either in their own practices, or within private clinics. InAustralia, despite the availability of training for GPs toprovide MTOP in their own practices, the uptake of thistraining and translation into service delivery appears to berelatively low [83]. In the US leadership, the commitmentof medical faculties, and the support of professional bodieshave been cited as essential components of routineabortion training to increase service provision [84]. Thishighlights the leadership role of Australian medical, nurs-ing, midwifery and pharmacy faculties and associated pro-fessional associations in undertaking to increase provisionin public facilities. RANZCOG has developed a trainingprogram for its fellows and associates and produced acomprehensive resource for health professionals coveringboth STOP and MTOP procedures [85]. Task shifting withprovision of STOP and MTOP services by, for exampleregistered nurses, is also acceptable to women as noted inthis review [52] and is not associated with a higher risk ofcomplications. In Australia task shifting is in its naissancewith nurses involved in supporting abortion care forwomen, however there have been no evaluations of suchservices. This is in contrast to middle and low incomecountries where nurses and other mid-level cadres havebeen found to perform MVA as safely and effectively asdoctors in India and Nepal [86, 87].Studies in the review noted that the anti-abortion
views of doctors had slowed the referral process and thatGPs made their views known to women [22, 43, 65]. Ad-dressing conscientious objection and, more broadly,provision of sensitivity training for personnel linked toservice delivery or referral pathways is critical. Practicaltraining as well as sensitivity training is vital for all levelsof service provider including gynaecologists, GPs andother primary care providers, pharmacists and ancillarystaff. Our review did not provide insight into how suchtraining should be undertaken and its impact upon ac-cess to services. However, doctors have been found tovalue teaching about the social issues surrounding abor-tion, as well as clinical ones [82]. Suggestions have been
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 Page 20 of 23
made by Kaposy in Canada to allow doctors conscientiousobjection while also ensuring access. This includes clearadvertisement of objection at services and regulation byprofessional associations to prevent women experiencingreferral delays, the refusal of information, or deliberatemisinformation [88].Legal restrictions in different Australian and US states
were noted to affect referral and travel in two studies inthe review [22, 56]. Variations in the legal status of abor-tion can also create confusion for providers and womenand may present unnecessary barriers to service provision.While there are no barriers to the provision of abortion inpublic hospitals in Australia when performed within thestate or territory-based legal framework, with the excep-tion of South Australia, they appear to be rarely performedin this setting [89]. The lack of abortion services may re-late to workforce issues and a lack of leadership, as well asthe values of faith based hospital services. While mostpublic hospitals will provide abortions, in certain circum-stances hospital policy may impose gestational limits andthere is generally no transparent central booking systemfor women or their GPs to access their abortion services.Kaposy highlights approaches Canada has taken to ensurepublic access that may be transferrable to Australiastates and territories. These measures include nationaldecriminalization and the designation of 33 public hospi-tals as abortion providers by the government of BritishColumbia [88].Only one study in the review specifically examined an
integrated care pathway [45]. Comprehensive abortioncare incorporates the management of complications,provision of STI testing and treatment, as well asprovision of contraception. The integration of abortionservices within family planning services and/or sexualhealth services or conversely integration of family plan-ning/sexual health services within abortion services isimportant in relation to reducing repeat abortions [90].Experiences of integrating comprehensive abortion careinto health services in HICs are difficult to locate in theliterature despite many services, such as those in Scotland,in existence [91, 92]. Studies from LMIC show that it isfeasible [93, 94] which may provide lessons for wealthiercountries.
ConclusionsClear ways forward for abortion service delivery inAustralia include the provision of choice and flexible op-tions for women, in conjunction with appropriate use oftechnology and the application of standards to ensureuniversal access and quality abortion services for allwomen. The paucity of evidence concerning access toabortion services in Australia, particularly the dimensionof availability, adequacy and quality, shows that more re-search is needed in this area. Of note is a lack of evidence
about demand for abortion services including the needs ofvulnerable groups of women whose difficulties accessingservices may misleadingly indicate a lower demand.Further research is required to examine this perspective.It is imperative that we draw on the success stories ofmodels which minimise unnecessary barriers to womenincluding the necessity to return to clinic for a post-MTOP pregnancy test. However, to implement such direc-tives leadership and advocacy is required from Australianmedical, nursing, midwifery and pharmacy faculties andtheir associated professional associations. In addition, pol-itical will is needed to decriminalise abortion across allstates and territories in Australia and ensure dedicatedpublic provision that is based on comprehensive modelstailored for all populations.
AbbreviationsGP: General practitioner; HIC: High income countries; ICP: Integrated carepathway; LMIC: Low and middle income countries; MTOP: Medical terminationof pregnancy; MVA: Manual vacuum aspiration; NZ: New Zealand;RANZCOG: Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians andGynaecologists; RCOG: Royal College of obstetricians and gynaecologists;STI: Sexually transmitted disease; STOP: Surgical termination of pregnancy;UK: United Kingdom; US: United States; USAID: United States of America AidAgency; WHO: World Health Organization
AcknowledgementsNone.
FundingThis study was unfunded.
Availability of data and materialsAll data is available in the public domain.
Authors’ contributionsAD designed the research, led the literature search and analysis and wrotethe manuscript. DB contributed to the framework, analysis and discussion.ES and JE contributed to the writing of the background, discussion andedited the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Consent for publicationNot applicable.
Ethics approval and consentNot applicable, all data is in the public domain.
Author details1Faculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), P.O. Box 123,Ultimo, NSW 2007, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 2Discipline, Gynaecology andNeonatology, University of Sydney, Family Planning New South Wales,28-336 Liverpool Road, Ashfield, NSW 2131, Australia. 3Family Planning NewSouth Wales, 28-336 Liverpool Road, Ashfield, NSW 2131, Australia. 4PublicHealth, Faculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), JonesStreet, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Received: 8 June 2016 Accepted: 12 October 2016
References1. Katz VL. Spontaneous and Recurrent Abortion-Etiology, Diagnosis,
Treatment. In: Katz VL, Lentz GM, Lobo RA, Gershenson D, editors.Comprehensive Gynecology. 5th ed. Philidelphia: Elsevier Mosby; 2007.
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 Page 21 of 23
2. WHO. Unsafe abortion: global and regional estimates of incidence of unsafeabortion and associated mortality in 2008. Geneva: World HealthOrganization; 2011.
3. Barot S. Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Are Key to GlobalDevelopment: The Case for Ramping Up Investment. Guttmacher PolicyRev. 2015;18:1.
4. WHO. Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems. 2nded. Geneva: World Health Organization, Department of Reproductive Healthand Research; 2012.
5. Souza JP, Widmer M, Gülmezoglu AM, Lawrie TA, Adejuyigbe EA, Carroli G,Crowther C, Currie SM, Dowswell T, Hofmeyr J. Maternal and perinatalhealth research priorities beyond 2015: an international survey andprioritization exercise. Reprod Health. 2014;11(1):61.
6. New country classifications by income level [http://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/new-country-classifications-2016]
7. Weitz TA, Taylor D, Desai S, Upadhyay UD, Waldman J, Battistelli MF, DreyEA. Safety of Aspiration Abortion Performed by Nurse Practitioners, CertifiedNurse Midwives, and Physician Assistants under a California Legal Waiver.Am J Public Health. 2013;103(3):454–61. Accessed 14 Oct 2016.
8. Renner RM, Brahmi D, Kapp N. Who can provide effective and safetermination of pregnancy care? A systematic review*. BJOG. 2013;120(1):23–31.
9. Ngo TD, Park MH, Shakur H, Free C. Comparative effectiveness, safety andacceptability of medical abortion at home and in a clinic: a systematicreview. World Health Organ Bull World Health Organ. 2011;89(5):360–70.
10. Ferreira ALCG, Lemos A, Figueiroa JN, De Souza AI. Effectiveness ofcontraceptive counselling of women following an abortion: a systematicreview and meta-analysis. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2009;14(1):1–9.
11. Doran F, Nancarrow S. Barriers and facilitators of access to first-trimesterabortion services for women in the developed world: a systematic review.J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2015;41(3):170–80.
12. Maternal Perinatal and Infant Mortality Committee. Maternal, Perinatal andInfant Mortality in South Australia 2011. Adelaide: SA Health, Government ofSouth Australia; 2013.
13. Joyce A, Tran B. Induced Abortions In Western Australia 2006–2009 ReportOf The WA Abortion Notification System. Perth: Maternal and Child HealthData Integrity Directorate Performance and Quality Division Department ofHealth, Western Australia; 2011.
14. Chan A, Sage LC. Estimating Australia’s abortion rates 1985–2003. Med JAust. 2005;182(9):447–52.
15. Grayson N, Hargreaves J, Sullivan EA. Use of routinely collected nationaldata sets for reporting on induced abortion in Australia. Sydney: AIHWNational Perinatal Statistics Unit; 2005.
16. Laws P, Grayson N, Sullivan E. Australia’s mothers and babies 2004. Perinatalstatistics. Sydney: AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit; 2006.
17. De Costa C, Douglas H, Hamblin J, Ramsay P, Shircore M. Abortion lawacross Australia-A review of nine jurisdictions. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol.2015;55(2):105–11.
18. Shelley JM, Kavanagh S, Graham M, Mayes C. Use of pregnancycounselling services in Australia 2007–2012. Aust N Z J Public Health.2015;39(1):77–81.
19. De Crespigny LJ, Wilkinson DJ, Douglas T, Textor M, Savulescu J. Australianattitudes to early and late abortion. Med J Aust. 2010;193(1):9–12.
20. De Costa CM, Russell DB, Carrette M. Views and practices of inducedabortion among Australian Fellows and specialist trainees of the RoyalAustralian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.Med J Aust. 2010;193(1):13–6.
21. Betts K. Attitudes to abortion: Australia and Queensland in the twenty-firstcentury. People and place. 2009;17(3):25.
22. Doran F, Hornibrook J. Rural New South Wales women’s access to abortionservices: Highlights from an exploratory qualitative study. Aust J RuralHealth. 2014;22(3):121–6.
23. Nickson C, Smith AMA, Shelley JM. Travel undertaken by women accessingprivate Victorian pregnancy termination services. Aust N Z J Public Health.2006;30(4):329–33.
24. Phillips T, Eltherington J, Costa C, Woods C. Knowledge of abortion law andprovision of abortion services amongst tertiary students in Far NorthQueensland. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;52(3):299–301.
25. Ensor T, Cooper S. Overcoming barriers to health service access: influencingthe demand side. Health Policy Plan. 2004;19(2):69–79.
26. Gulliford M, Figueroa-Munoz J, Morgan M, Hughes D, Gibson B, Beech R,Hudson M. What does’ access to health care’mean? J Health Serv Res Policy.2002;7(3):186–8.
27. Blankenship KM, Bray SJ, Merson MH. Structural interventions in publichealth. Aids. 2000;14:S11–21.
28. Obrist B, Iteba N, Lengeler C, Makemba A, Mshana C, Nathan R, Alba S, Dillip A,Hetzel MW, Mayumana I, et al. Access to Health Care in Contexts of LivelihoodInsecurity: A Framework for Analysis and Action. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10), e308.
29. Tugwell P, De Savigny D, Hawker G, Robinson V. Applying clinicalepidemiological methods to health equity: the equity effectiveness loop.BMJ. 2006;332:358–61.
30. Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107–15.
31. CRD. Systematic Reviews CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in HealthCare. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2009.
32. Donabedian A. Basic approaches to assessment: structure, process andoutcome. Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring. 1980;1:77–128.
33. RCOG. Best practice in comprehensive abortion care. London: The RoyalCollege of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 2015.
34. Comprehensive Abortion Care [http://www.ipas.org/en/What-We-Do/Comprehensive-Abortion-Care.aspx]
35. Baxter S, Blank L, Guillaume L, Squires H, Payne N. Views of contraceptiveservice delivery to young people in the UK: a systematic review andthematic synthesis. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2011;37(2):71–84.Accessed 14 Oct 2016.
36. Mwaikambo L, Speizer IS, Schurmann A, Morgan G, Fikree F. What works infamily planning interventions: a systematic review. Stud Fam Plan. 2011;42(2):67–82.
37. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group TP. Preferred reportingitems for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.PLoS Med. 2009;6.
38. Loeber OE. Motivation and satisfaction with early medical vs. surgicalabortion in the Netherlands. Reprod Health Matters. 2010;18(35):145–53.
39. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) CASP Checklists [http://www.casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists]
40. Pluye P, Gagnon M, Griffiths F, Johnson-Lafleur J. A scoring system forappraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraisingqualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in MixedStudies Reviews. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46(4):529–46. Accessed 14 Oct 2016.
41. Cameron S, Glasier A, Dewart H, Johnstone A. Women’s experiences of thefinal stage of early medical abortion at home: results of a pilot survey. JFam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2010;36(4):213–6.
42. Cameron ST, Glasier A, Dewart H, Johnstone A, Burnside A. Telephonefollow-up and self-performed urine pregnancy testing after early medicalabortion: a service evaluation. Contraception. 2012;86(1):67–73.
43. Esen U, Koram K, Doherty E, Orife S, Jones A. Termination of pregnancy inSouth Tyneside. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;26(8):791–4.
44. Finnie S, Foy R, Mather J. The pathway to induced abortion: women’sexperiences and general practitioner attitudes. J Fam Plann Reprod HealthCare. 2006;32(1):15–8.
45. Graham O, Jayadeva P, Guthrie K. The use of an integrated care pathway forevidence-based practice and clinical governance in abortion care. J ObstetGynaecol. 2010;30(4):397–403.
46. Gupta S, Kapwepwe S. Collaboration with the voluntary sector in setting upan early medical abortion service in the PCT. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;27(5):506–9.
47. Hamoda H, Flett GMM, Ashok PW, Templeton A. Surgical abortion usingmanual vacuum aspiration under local anaesthesia: a pilot study offeasibility and women’s acceptability. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care.2005;31(3):185–8.
48. Lipp A. Service provision for women undergoing termination of pregnancy:progress in Wales, UK. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2009;35(1):15–9.
49. Mason L. Referral to a National Health Service-funded abortion clinic. J FamPlann Reprod Health Care. 2005;31(2):117–20.
50. McKay RJ, Rutherford L. Women’s satisfaction with early home medicalabortion with telephone follow-up: A questionnaire-based study in the UK.J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;33(6):601–4.
51. Pillai M, Welsh V, Sedgeman K, Gazet AC, Staddon J, Carter H.Introduction of a manual vacuum aspiration service: a model of servicewithin a NHS Sexual Health Service. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care.2015;41(1):27–32.
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 Page 22 of 23
52. Sharma S, Guthrie K. Nurse-led telephone consultation and outpatient localanaesthetic abortion: a Pilot Proiect. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2006;32(1):19–22.
53. Tupper C, Andrews SS. Setting up an outpatient service for early medicaltermination. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2007;33(3):199–202.
54. Astle H, Cameron ST, Johnstone A. Comparison of unscheduled re-attendance and contraception at discharge, among women having the finalstage of early medical abortion at home and those remaining in hospital. JFam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2012;38(1):35–40.
55. Blum J, Shochet T, Lynd K, Lichtenberg ES, Fischer D, Arnesen M, Winikoff B,Blumenthal PD. Can at-home semi-quantitative pregnancy tests serve as areplacement for clinical follow-up of medical abortion? A US studyContraception. 2012;86(6):757–62.
56. Dodge LE, Haider S, Hacker MR. Using a simulated patient to assess referralfor abortion services in the USA. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2012;38(4):246–51.
57. Grindlay K, Lane K, Grossman D. Women’s and Providers’ Experiences withMedical Abortion Provided Through Telemedicine: A Qualitative Study.Womens Health Issues. 2013;23(2):E117–22.
58. Grossman D, Grindlay K, Buchacker T, Lane K, Blanchard K. Effectiveness andacceptability of medical abortion provided through telemedicine. ObstetGynecol. 2011;118(2 PART 1):296–303.
59. Grossman DAMD, Grindlay KM, Buchacker TRN, Potter JEP, SchmertmannCPP. Changes in Service Delivery Patterns after Introduction of TelemedicineProvision of Medical Abortion in Iowa. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(1):73–8.
60. Jones RK, Jerman J. How Far Did US Women Travel for Abortion Services in2008? J Womens Health. 2013;22(8):706–13.
61. Kimport K, Cockrill K, Weitz TA. Analyzing the impacts of abortion clinicstructures and processes: a qualitative analysis of women’s negativeexperience of abortion clinics. Contraception. 2012;85(2):204–10.
62. David PH, Reichenbach L, Savelieva I, Vartapetova N, Potemkina R. Women’sreproductive health needs in Russia: what can we learn from an interventionto improve post-abortion care? Health Policy Plan. 2007;22(2):83–94.
63. Oliveras E, Larsen U, David PH. Client satisfaction with abortion care in threeRussian cities. J Biosoc Sci. 2005;37(5):585–601.
64. Silva M, McNeill R. Geographical access to termination of pregnancy servicesin New Zealand. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2008;32(6):519–21.
65. Silva M, McNeill R, Ashton T. Factors affecting delays in first trimesterpregnancy termination services in New Zealand. Aust N Z J Public Health.2011;35(2):140–5.
66. Snook S, Silva M. Abortion services in a high-needs district: a community-based model of care. J Prim Health Care. 2013;5(2):151–3.
67. Norman WV, Hestrin B, Dueck R. Access to Complex Abortion Care Serviceand Planning Improved through a Toll-Free Telephone Resource Line.Obstet Gynecol Int. 2014;2014:913241.
68. RCOG. The use of anti-D immunoglobulin for rhesus D prophylaxis. In:Green-top guideline. London: Royal College of Obstetricians andGynaecologists; 2011.
69. RANZCOG. Guidelines for the use of Rh (D) Immunoglobulin (Anti-D) inobstetrics in Australia. Melbourne: The Royal Australian and New ZealandCollege of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 2015.
70. RCOG. The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortio. In: Evidence basedClinical Guideline Number 7. London: Royal College of Obstetricians andGynaecologists; 2004.
71. Raymond EG, Chong E, Hyland P. Increasing Access to Abortion WithTelemedicine. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(5):585–6.
72. What’s involved the medical termination process [http://www.tabbot.com.au/medical-termination/whats-involved.html]
73. ESCAP. Handbook on Reproductive Health Indicators. New York: Economicand Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific; 2003. Accessed 14 Oct2016.
74. Davis AR, Beasley AD. Abortion in adolescents: epidemiology, confidentiality,and methods. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2009;21(5):390–5.
75. Pregnant Somali asylum seeker Abyan had not ruled out abortion, FOIdocuments reveal [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-02/pregnant-asylum-seeker-wanted-an-abortion-foi-documents-say/7064038]
76. Bearinger LH, Sieving RE, Ferguson J, Sharma V. Global perspectives on thesexual and reproductive health of adolescents: patterns, prevention, andpotential. Lancet. 2007;369(9568):1220–31. Accessed 14 Oct 2016.
77. Ostrach B. “Yo No Sabía…”—Immigrant Women’s Use of National HealthSystems for Reproductive and Abortion Care. J Immigr Minor Health. 2013;15(2):262–72.
78. Schoevers MA, van den Muijsenbergh ME, Lagro-Janssen AL. Illegal femaleimmigrants in The Netherlands have unmet needs in sexual andreproductive health. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;31(4):256–64.
79. O’Rourke K. Its time for a new sexual and reprodcutive health strategy forAustralia. In: Sexual and Reproductive Health Strategy Reference Group ofthe Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA), Women’s Health SpecialInterest Group. Canberra: Sexual Health & Family Planning Association ofAustralia and the Australian Reproductive Health Alliance; 2008.
80. Lewis V, Marsh G, Hanley F, Macmillan J, Morgain L, Silburn K, Kalucy E,Dwyer J, Rostant J, Mead C. Understanding vulnerability in primary healthcare: Overcoming barriers to consumer transitions. Canberra: APHCRI, ANU;2013.
81. Milosevic D, Cheng I-H, Smith MM. The NSW Refugee Health Service:Improving refugee access to primary care. Aust Fam Physician. 2012;41(3):147.
82. Freedman L, Landy U, Steinauer J. Obstetrician-gynecologist experienceswith abortion training: physician insights from a qualitative study.Contraception. 2010;81(6):525–30.
83. Grossman D, Goldstone P. Mifepristone by prescription: a dream in theUnited States but reality in Australia. Contraception. 2015;92(3):186–9.
84. Guiahi M, Lim S, Westover C, Gold M, Westhoff CL. Enablers of and barriersto abortion training. J Grad Med Educ. 2013;5(2):238–43.
85. RANZCOG. Termination of pregnancy A resource for health professionals.Melbourne: Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians andGynaecologists; 2005.
86. Jejeebhoy SJ, Kalyanwala S, Zavier AF, Kumar R, Mundle S, Tank J, Acharya R,Jha N. Can nurses perform manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) as safelyand effectively as physicians? Evidence from India. Contraception.2011;84(6):615–21.
87. Warriner I, Wang D, Huong NM, Thapa K, Tamang A, Shah I, Baird DT, MeirikO. Can midlevel health-care providers administer early medical abortion assafely and effectively as doctors? A randomised controlled equivalence trialin Nepal. Lancet. 2011;377(9772):1155–61.
88. Kaposy C. Improving abortion access in Canada. Health Care Anal.2010;18(1):17–34.
89. De Costa CM. Medical abortion for Australian women: it’s time. Med J Aust.2005;183(7):378–80.
90. Cohen SA. Repeat abortion, repeat unintended pregnancy, repeated andmisguided government policies. Guttmacher Policy Review. 2007;10(2):8–12.
91. Lothian Sexual Health [http://www.lothiansexualhealth.scot.nhs.uk/Services/HowToFindUs/Pages/default.aspx]
92. Sandyford Sexual Health Services [http://www.sandyford.org/]. Accessed 14Oct 2016.
93. Delvaux T, Sœur S, Rathavy T, Crabbé F, Buvé A. Integration ofcomprehensive abortion-care services in a Maternal and Child Health clinicin Cambodia. Tropical Med Int Health. 2008;13(8):962–9. Accessed 14 Oct2016.
94. Prata N, Bell S, Gessessew A. Comprehensive abortion care: evidence ofimprovements in hospital-level indicators in Tigray, Ethiopia. BMJ Open.2013;3(7), e002873.
• We accept pre-submission inquiries
• Our selector tool helps you to find the most relevant journal
• We provide round the clock customer support
• Convenient online submission
• Thorough peer review
• Inclusion in PubMed and all major indexing services
• Maximum visibility for your research
Submit your manuscript atwww.biomedcentral.com/submit
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central and we will help you at every step:
Dawson et al. BMC Health Services Research (2016) 16:612 Page 23 of 23