Second-trimester abortion attitudes and practices among maternal-fetal medicine and family planning subspecialists

Second-trimester abortion and risk of live birth

BACKGROUND

Second-trimester abortion may result in a live birth, but the extent to which this outcome occurs is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine rates of live birth after pregnancy termination in the second trimester and identify associated risk factors.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 13,777 second-trimester abortions occurring in hospital settings between April 1, 1989 and March 31, 2021 in Quebec, Canada. The exposure was induced abortion between 15 and 29 weeks of gestation, including the indication for (fetal anomaly, maternal emergency, other) and use of feticidal injection (intracardiac/intrathoracic or intraamniotic). The primary outcome was live birth following abortion. We measured the rate of live birth per 100 abortions and used adjusted log-binomial regression models to estimate risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association of fetal and maternal characteristics with the risk of live birth. We assessed the extent to which feticidal injection reduced the risk.

RESULTS

Among 13,777 abortions between 15 and 29 weeks of gestation, 1541 (11.2%) led to live birth. Fetal anomaly was a common indication for termination (48.1%), and most abortions were by labor induction (72.2%). Compared with abortion between 15 and 19 weeks, abortion between 20 and 24 weeks was associated with 4.80 times the risk of live birth (95% confidence interval, 4.20-5.48), whereas abortion between 25 and 29 weeks was associated with 1.34 times the risk (95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.79). Feticidal injection reduced the risk of live birth by 57% compared with no injection (risk ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.51). Intracardiac or intrathoracic injection was particularly effective at preventing live birth (risk ratio, 0.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.07).

CONCLUSION

Second-trimester abortion carries a risk of live birth, especially at 20 to 24 weeks of gestation, although feticidal injection may protect against this outcome.

New Gaps and Urgent Needs in Graduate Medical Education and Training in Abortion

Abortion is essential health care, and abortion training and education are essential at all levels of medical education. Among the most common procedures performed in obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN), abortion is a core competency for OB/GYN residency programs. For nearly 50 years, the procedure was federally protected by the U.S. Supreme Court's January 22, 1973, Roe v Wade decision. On June 24, 2022, amidst increasing state restrictions limiting abortion access, the Court's decision on Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization effectively reversed Roe . As a result, immediate bans on abortion went into effect across the country, removing access to abortion for millions of people and newly limiting training and education in this core competency for many medical residents. As of June 2022, nearly half of U.S. OB/GYN residency programs and more than 40% of residents are located in states that have banned or are likely to ban abortion. In states where abortion is restricted or illegal, states must adapt quickly to ensure their residents meet training requirements. This adaptation may include developing and leveraging relationships with programs in states where access is protected, depending on simulation, and placing greater emphasis on education and training in pregnancy loss management and postabortion care. None of these is a comprehensive solution and even all together, they are insufficient to train residents and medical students. Ultimately, many future physicians will not receive the training they need to provide full reproductive health care to their pregnant patients. Legal and other systems of support are needed to ensure that current and future physicians can provide compassionate, evidence-based reproductive health care, including essential abortion care.

The ongoing crisis of abortion care education and training in the United States

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The Dobbs vs Jackson case (Dobbs) decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in 2022 rescinded the constitutional right to abortion care, resulting in immediate state bans and severe restrictions on abortion care in almost half of the states at the time of submission. This article reviews the current state of abortion education and training as well as available curricula and programmes to support continued training.

RECENT FINDINGS

Prior to Dobbs, a national residency-level training programme, the Ryan Residency Training Program, has helped expand abortion care training in residency programs nationally, yet there remained many barriers to incorporating this training into practice, including practice and hospital restrictions. New state restrictions now additionally constrain almost half of all the Ob-Gyn residency programmes. Medical students benefit from education on options counselling and values exploration.

SUMMARY

Abortion care education and training is in crisis. Almost half of the Ob-Gyn residents are training in states that have banned or severely restricted abortion care. This threatens to create a workforce without critical early pregnancy management knowledge and skills. Residents are more likely to provide abortion care when they have scheduled routine training. Medical students can apply options counselling and values exploration knowledge broadly. Online education resources provide some patchwork solutions to continue abortion care education and training in this heavily restrictive landscape.

Second- and Third-Trimester Medical Abortion Providers and Services in 2019: Results from the Canadian Abortion Provider Survey

OBJECTIVES

Mifepristone became available in Canada in 2017. Updated national guidelines recommend its off-label use for second/third-trimester medical abortion (STMA/TTMA) by labour induction. The objective of this study was to explore STMA/TTMA provision in Canada and the role of mifepristone.

METHODS

We conducted a national, cross-sectional, web-based, self-administered, anonymized survey, available in English and French. The survey was distributed through health professional organizations and recruited physicians who provided abortion care in 2019. We used a modified Dillman technique to maximize participation. The survey included sections on workforce and clinical care, including mifepristone use. We used R statistical software to produce descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Four hundred sixty-five clinicians responded to the survey, of whom 112 reported providing STMA and 63, TTMA, for a total of 115 respondents providing at least 1 of the 2 services. Two-thirds of respondents were general obstetrician-gynaecologists or family physicians and the remainder were maternal-fetal medicine subspecialists. The majority (64.7%) provided STMA/TTMA in an academic hospital, and 59.4% performed fewer than 5 STMAs (maximum 50) and 76.1%, fewer than 5 TTMA (maximum 15) in 2019. Fifty-nine percent of respondents reported having used mifepristone/misoprostol for STMA. Among mifepristone users, 48.6% used it for TTMA. Most required an indication beyond patient request to provide STMA/TTMA (82.1%/95.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

STMA/TTMA care is provided by multiple (sub-) specialties, and mifepristone has not yet been universally implemented. Our results will inform knowledge translation activities aimed at facilitating collaboration between STMA/TTMA providers and health policy and service delivery leaders and will further increase mifepristone use for STMA/TTMA in Canada.

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Special Statement: Maternal-fetal medicine subspecialist survey on abortion training and service provision

Following a collaborative workshop at the 39th Annual Pregnancy Meeting, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Reproductive Health Advisory Group identified a need to assess the attitudes of maternal-fetal medicine subspecialists about abortion services and the available resources at the local and regional levels. The purpose of this study was to identify trends in attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of practicing maternal-fetal medicine subspecialists in the United States regarding abortion. An online survey was distributed to associate and regular members of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine to assess their personal training experience, abortion practice patterns, factors that influence their decision to provide abortion care, and their responses to a series of scenarios about high-risk maternal or fetal medical conditions. Frequencies were analyzed and univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted on the survey responses. Of the 2751 members contacted, 546 Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine members completed all (448 of 546, 82.1%) or some (98 of 546, 17.9%) of the survey. More than 80% of the respondents reported availability of abortion services in their state, 70% reported availability at their primary institution, and 44% reported provision as part of their personal medical practice. Ease of referral to family planning subspecialists or other abortion providers, institutional restrictions, and the lack of training or continuing education were identified as the most significant factors contributing to the respondents' limited scope of abortion services or lack of any abortion services offered. In the univariable analysis, exposure to formal family planning training programs, fewer years since the completion of residency, current practice setting not being religiously affiliated, and current state categorized as supportive by the Guttmacher Institute's abortion policy landscape were factors associated with abortion provision (all P values <.01). After controlling for these factors in a multivariable regression, exposure to formal family planning training programs was no longer associated with current abortion provision (P=.20; adjusted odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-2.10), whereas a favorable state policy environment and fewer years since the completion of residency remained associated with abortion provision. The results of this survey suggest that factors at the individual, institutional, and state levels affect the provision of abortion care by maternal-fetal medicine subspecialists. The subspecialty of maternal-fetal medicine should be active in ensuring adequate training and education to create a community of maternal-fetal medicine physicians able to provide comprehensive reproductive healthcare services.