Estimating the abortion rate in Australia from National Hospital Morbidity and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme data

Abortion, decriminalisation and the medico-legal paradigm

The medico-legal paradigm enmeshes legal with medical power, making abortion lawfully available only under the supervision of medical professionals. This article examines the recent parliamentary debates over abortion decriminalisation in New South Wales, Australia's most populous state, to argue that the decriminalisation of abortion in Australia represents a continuance with, rather than a break from, the medico-legal paradigm. The medical power embedded in laws that criminalised abortion in the nineteenth century, and liberalised abortion in the twentieth century, was not the same as that imagined by parliamentarians debating decriminalising abortion in the twenty-first century. Norms constituting abortion seekers and their doctors have shifted significantly. Nevertheless, the medico-legal paradigm continues to govern how lawful abortion is imagined. The medico-legal paradigm converts abortion seekers' desires for abortion into a need for healthcare and imagines the autonomy and agency of abortion seekers as enabled only through their subjection to medical power. This conversion, I suggest, dampens the potential abortion holds to open up and challenge norms of gender, sexuality and reproduction.

Changes in the numbers of hospital-based abortions and outpatient early medical abortions in Victoria, 2012-22: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To assess changes in the monthly numbers of hospital-based abortions and outpatient early medical abortions in Victoria during January 2012 - March 2022, with a particular interest in the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

STUDY DESIGN

Population-based retrospective cohort study; time series analysis of Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset (VAED) and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) data.

SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

All admitted care episodes in Victoria during 1 January 2012 - 31 March 2022 with medical abortion as the principal diagnosis; all PBS claims for mifepristone-misoprostol (MS-2 Step) during 1 January 2015 (date of listing) - 31 March 2022.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Changes in monthly numbers (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) of admissions for hospital-based and outpatient early medical abortions during the pre-pandemic period (January 2012 - March 2020), the first full month of the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020), and the pandemic period (May 2020 - March 2022).

RESULTS

The monthly number of hospital-based abortions declined in Victoria during the pre-pandemic period (slope, -2.92 [95% CI, -3.45 to -2.38] per month); the rate of decline was greater during the pandemic period (slope, -5.74 [95% CI, -10.5 to -0.96] per month). The monthly number of outpatient early medical abortions increased during the pre-pandemic period (slope, 5.94 [95% CI, 5.34-6.34] per month); it declined during the first month of the pandemic (slope, -26.4 [95% CI, -70.1 to -17.3] per month), but did not significantly change thereafter. The total monthly number of abortions during the pandemic period did not deviate markedly from the pre-pandemic median value. The pre-pandemic declines in monthly numbers of abortions in major city hospitals, in private hospitals, or at earlier than 14 weeks' gestation intensified during the pandemic period. During January 2015 - March 2020, 14 634 of 103 496 abortions were outpatient medical abortions (14%); during the pandemic period, 11 154 of 33 056 abortions were outpatient medical abortions (33%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of outpatient early medical abortion has steadily increased in Victoria since the PBS listing of mifepristone-misoprostol, which helped ensure access to abortion during the COVID-19 pandemic. Outpatient medical abortions may eventually outnumber surgical early abortions in Victoria, but they are not always appropriate: hospitals will continue to be essential for comprehensive abortion care.

The prevalence of and factors associated with prior induced abortion among women who gave birth in Victoria, 2010-2019

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence of a history of induced abortion among women who gave birth in Victoria during 2010-2019; to assess the association of socio-demographic factors with a history of induced abortion.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study; analysis of cross-sectional perinatal data in the Victorian Perinatal Data Collection (VPDC).

SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

All women who gave birth (live or stillborn) in Victoria, 1 January 2010 - 31 December 2019.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Self-reported induced abortions prior to the index birth; outcome of the most recent pregnancy preceding the index pregnancy.

RESULTS

Of the 766 488 women who gave birth during 2010-2019, 93 251 reported induced abortions (12.2%), including 36 938 of 338 547 nulliparous women (10.9%). Women living in inner regional (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-0.96) or outer regional/remote/very remote areas (aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.89) were less likely than women in major cities to report induced abortions. The likelihood increased steadily with age at the index birth and with parity, and was also higher for women without partners at the index birth (aOR, 2.20; 95% CI, 2.16-2.25) and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women (aOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.25-1.40). The likelihood was lower for women born in most areas outside Australia than for those born in Australia. The likelihood of a history of induced abortion declined across the study period overall (2019 v 2010: 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and for women in major cities (0.88; 95% CI, 0.84-0.91); rises in inner regional and outer regional/remote/very remote areas were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Access to abortion care in Victoria improved during 2010-2019, but the complex interplay between contraceptive use, unintended pregnancy, and induced abortion requires further exploration by remoteness of residence. Robust information about numbers of unintended pregnancies and access to reproductive health services are needed to guide national sexual and reproductive health policy and practice.

Who does what? Reproductive responsibilities between heterosexual partners

Managing fertility and sexual and reproductive health across the life course is associated with numerous responsibilities disproportionately experienced by women. This extends beyond dealing with the physical side effects of contraception and can include the emotional burden of planning conception and the financial cost of accessing health services. This scoping review aimed to map how reproductive responsibilities were defined and negotiated (if at all) between heterosexual casual and long-term partners during any reproductive life event. Original research in high-income countries published from 2015 onwards was sourced from Medline (Ovid), CINAHL and Scopus. In studies that focused on pregnancy prevention and abortion decision making, men felt conflict in their desire to be actively engaged while not wanting to impede their partner's agency and bodily autonomy. Studies identified multiple barriers to engaging in reproductive work including the lack of acceptable male-controlled contraception, poor sexual health knowledge, financial constraints, and the feminisation of family planning services. Traditional gender roles further shaped men's involvement in both pregnancy prevention and conception work. Despite this, studies reveal nuanced ways of sharing responsibilities - such as companionship during birth and abortion, ensuring contraception is used correctly during intercourse, and sharing the costs of reproductive health care.

Typologies of interactions between abortion seekers and healthcare workers in Australia: a qualitative study exploring the impact of stigma on quality of care

BACKGROUND

Abortion stigma involves the stereotyping of, discrimination against, and delegitimization of those who seek and provide abortion. Experiences of abortion care are shaped by stigma at the meso (e.g., lack of local providers) and macro (e.g., abortion regulations) levels. Yet abortion stigma and quality of care are often examined separately. This study sought to articulate the impact of abortion stigma on quality of care in the context of healthcare interactions. It did so by characterizing the features of stigmatizing and non-stigmatizing care in the context of macro-level stigma and other structural factors that influence abortion-seeking experiences, including the coronavirus pandemic's influence on the health system.

METHODS

This qualitative study comprised in-depth interviews with people who sought abortion across Australia between March 2020 and November 2022, recruited through social media and flyers in clinics. Thematic analysis drew on concepts of micro, meso, and macro stigma and person-centered care. We developed typologies of the interactions between abortion seekers and healthcare workers by analytically grouping together negative and positive experiences to characterize features of stigmatizing and and non-stigmatizing care in the context of macro-level influences.

RESULTS

We interviewed 24 abortion seekers and developed five typologies of stigmatizing care: creating barriers; judging; ignoring emotional and information needs; making assumptions; and minimizing interactions. There are five corresponding positive typologies. Macro-level factors, from abortion regulations to rural and pandemic-related health system pressures, contributed to poor experiences in care.

CONCLUSIONS

The positive experiences in this study illustrate how a lack of stigma enables patient-centered care. The negative experiences reflect the interrelationship between stigmatizing beliefs among healthcare workers, macro-level (policy and regulatory) abortion stigma, and structural health service limitations exacerbated during the pandemic. Interventions are needed to reduce stigmatizing interactions between abortion seekers and healthcare workers, and should also consider macro-level factors that influence the behaviors of healthcare workers and experiences of abortion seekers. Without addressing stigma at multiple levels, equitable access to high-quality abortion care will be difficult to achieve. Efforts to integrate stigma reduction into quality improvement have relevance for maternal and reproductive health services globally.

Dispensing mifepristone for medical abortion in Canada: Pharmacists' experiences of the first year

Background

Mifepristone for medical abortion was first dispensed by community pharmacists in Canada directly to patients in January 2017. We asked about pharmacists' experiences over their first year dispensing mifepristone in order to evaluate the frequency of the new practice and assess availability in urban/rural pharmacies.

Methods

From August to December 2019, we invited 433 community pharmacists who had completed a baseline survey at least 1 year prior to participate in a follow-up online survey. We summarized categorical data using counts and proportions and conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of open-ended responses.

Results

Among 122 participants, 67.2% had dispensed the product, and 48.4% routinely stocked mifepristone. Pharmacists reported a mean of 26 and median of 3 (interquartile range, 1, 8) mifepristone prescriptions filled in their pharmacies in the previous year. Participants perceived that the benefits of making mifepristone available in pharmacies included increased abortion access for patients (n = 115; 94.3%), reduced pressure on the health care system (n = 104; 85.3%), increased rural and remote abortion access (n = 103; 84.4%) and increased interprofessional collaborations (n = 48; 39.3%). Few participants reported challenges to maintaining adequate stock of mifepristone, but these challenges included low demand (n = 24; 19.7%), short expiry dating (n = 12; 9.8%) and drug shortages (n = 8; 6.6%). The overwhelming majority, 96.7%, reported that their communities did not resist the provision of mifepristone by their pharmacy.

Interpretation

Participating pharmacists reported many benefits and very few barriers to stocking and dispensing mifepristone. Both urban and rural communities responded positively to enhanced access to mifepristone in their community.

Conclusions

Mifepristone is well accepted by pharmacists within the primary care system in Canada.