Patient experiences of undergoing abortion with and without an ultrasound scan in Britain

Author:

Blaylock RebeccaORCID,Lohr Patricia AORCID,Hoggart LesleyORCID,Lowe PamORCID

Abstract

BackgroundRoutine ultrasound scanning to determine gestational age and pregnancy location has long been part of pre-abortion assessment in Britain, despite not being legally required or recommended in national clinical guidelines. To support implementation of fully telemedical abortion care (implemented in Britain in April 2020), the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) issued clinical guidance for an ‘as-indicated’ approach to pre-abortion ultrasound, removing the need for a clinic visit. We aimed to understand patient experiences of ultrasound in abortion care by conducting a qualitative study with individuals who had abortions with and without an ultrasound scan.MethodsBetween November 2021 and July 2022, we recruited patients who had a medical abortion at home without a pre-procedure ultrasound at 69 days’ gestation or less at British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), and also had at least one other abortion with an ultrasound from any provider in Britain. We conducted interviews using a semi-structured interview guide to explore our participants’ experiences and conducted reflexive thematic analysis.ResultsWe recruited 24 participants and included 19 interviews in our analysis. We developed three themes from our data. These were ‘Ultrasound scans and their relationship with autonomy and decision-making’, ‘Intrusive and out of place: the ultrasound as an inappropriate technology’ and ‘Towards preference-centred, quality care’.ConclusionsFurther research and user-testing of strategies to improve the scan experience should be undertaken. Patient testimonies on the negative impact of ultrasound scans in abortion care should reassure providers that omitting them according to patient preference is a positive step towards providing patient-centred care.

Funder

The European Society for Contraception and Reproductive Health

Publisher

BMJ

Reference28 articles.

1. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists . The care of women requesting induced abortion (Evidence-based Clinical Guideline No. 7). London, UK: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 2011.

2. Parsons JA , Romanis EC . Early medical abortion, equality of access, and the Telemedical imperative. In: Early medical abortion, equality of access, and the telemedical imperative. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, September 2021. doi:10.1093/med/9780192896155.001.0001

3. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists . Coronavirus (COVID-19) infection and abortion care. Information for healthcare professionals; 2020. Available: https://www.rcog.org.uk/media/bbhpl2qa/2020-07-31-coronavirus-covid-19-infection-and-abortion-care.pdf

4. Effectiveness, safety and acceptability of No‐Test medical abortion (termination of pregnancy) provided via Telemedicine: a national cohort study;Aiken;BJOG,2021

5. Telemedicine medical abortion at home under 12 weeks’ gestation: a prospective observational cohort study during the COVID-19 pandemic

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3