Ingrida Platais1, Tamar Tsereteli2, Rodica Comendant3, Dilfuza Kurbanbekova4, Beverly Winikoff5. 1. Gynuity Health Projects, New York, NY 10010, USA. Electronic address: iplatais@gynuity.org. 2. Gynuity Health Projects, Tbilisi, Georgia. 3. Moldova State Medical University, Reproductive Health Training Center, Chisinau, Moldova. 4. Women's Wellness Center, Tashkent, Uzbekistan. 5. Gynuity Health Projects, New York, NY 10010, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of phone follow-up with a home semiquantitative pregnancy test and standardized checklist, and compare the alternative method of follow-up with in-clinic follow-up after medical abortion. STUDY DESIGN:Two thousand four hundred women undergoing medical abortion withmifepristone and misoprostolin Moldova and Uzbekistan were randomized to phone or clinic follow-up. All women in the clinic group returned to the clinic 2 weeks later. Women randomized to phone follow-up used a semiquantitative pregnancy test at the initial visit and repeated the test at home 2 weeks later when they also filled out a symptom checklist. Women were called at 2 weeks to review the test results and checklist. Participants who screened "positive" were referred to clinic to verify abortion completion. RESULTS: Most women in the phone group were successfully contacted on the phone (97.6%). Staff were unable to contact one woman in the phone follow-up group, and all women in clinic group returned to the clinic. The ongoing pregnancy rate was similar in both groups (0.4-0.6%), and the semiquantitative pregnancy test identified all ongoing pregnancies in the phone follow-up group. Women in the phone group found the test and checklist easy to use, and most (76.1%) preferred phone follow-up in the future. Overall, 92.8% of women in the phone group did not undergo in-clinic follow-up. CONCLUSION:Phone follow-up with a semiquantitative urine pregnancy test and symptom checklist is a feasible and a highly effective approach in identifying ongoing pregnancy after medical abortion. IMPLICATIONS: The semiquantitative pregnancy test can make home follow-up after medical abortion possible for many women and provide reassurance that ongoing pregnancies will be detected.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of phone follow-up with a home semiquantitative pregnancy test and standardized checklist, and compare the alternative method of follow-up with in-clinic follow-up after medical abortion. STUDY DESIGN: Two thousand four hundred women undergoing medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol in Moldova and Uzbekistan were randomized to phone or clinic follow-up. All women in the clinic group returned to the clinic 2 weeks later. Women randomized to phone follow-up used a semiquantitative pregnancy test at the initial visit and repeated the test at home 2 weeks later when they also filled out a symptom checklist. Women were called at 2 weeks to review the test results and checklist. Participants who screened "positive" were referred to clinic to verify abortion completion. RESULTS: Most women in the phone group were successfully contacted on the phone (97.6%). Staff were unable to contact one woman in the phone follow-up group, and all women in clinic group returned to the clinic. The ongoing pregnancy rate was similar in both groups (0.4-0.6%), and the semiquantitative pregnancy test identified all ongoing pregnancies in the phone follow-up group. Women in the phone group found the test and checklist easy to use, and most (76.1%) preferred phone follow-up in the future. Overall, 92.8% of women in the phone group did not undergo in-clinic follow-up. CONCLUSION: Phone follow-up with a semiquantitative urine pregnancy test and symptom checklist is a feasible and a highly effective approach in identifying ongoing pregnancy after medical abortion. IMPLICATIONS: The semiquantitative pregnancy test can make home follow-up after medical abortion possible for many women and provide reassurance that ongoing pregnancies will be detected.
Authors: Daniel Grossman; Sarah E Baum; Denitza Andjelic; Carrie Tatum; Guadalupe Torres; Liza Fuentes; Jennifer Friedman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Tara Shochet; Ioanna A Comstock; Nguyen Thi Nhu Ngoc; Lynn M Westphal; Wendy R Sheldon; Ly Thai Loc; Jennifer Blum; Beverly Winikoff; Paul D Blumenthal Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 2.809