Literature DB >> 26214844

Doctors or mid-level providers for abortion.

Sharmani Barnard1, Caron Kim, Min Hae Park, Thoai D Ngo.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends that abortion can be provided at the lowest level of the healthcare system. Training mid-level providers, such as midwives, nurses and other non-physician providers, to conduct first trimester aspiration abortions and manage medical abortions has been proposed as a way to increase women's access to safe abortion procedures.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and effectiveness of abortion procedures administered by mid-level providers compared to doctors. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL Issue 7, MEDLINE and POPLINE databases for comparative studies of doctor and mid-level providers of abortion services. We searched for studies published in any language from January 1980 until 15 August 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (clustered or not clustered), prospective cohort studies or observational studies that compared the safety or effectiveness (or both) of any type of first trimester abortion procedure, administered by any type of mid-level provider or doctors, were eligible for inclusion in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors screened abstracts for eligibility and double-extracted data from the included studies using a pre-tested form. We meta-analysed primary outcome data using both fixed-effect and random-effects models to obtain pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We carried out separate analyses by study design (RCT or cohort) and type of abortion procedure (medical versus surgical). MAIN
RESULTS: Eight studies involving 22,018 participants met our eligibility criteria. Five studies (n = 18,962) assessed the safety and effectiveness of surgical abortion procedures administered by mid-level providers compared to doctors. Three studies (n = 3056) assessed the safety and effectiveness of medical abortion procedures. The surgical abortion studies (one RCT and four cohort studies) were carried out in the United States, India, South Africa and Vietnam. The medical abortion studies (two RCTs and one cohort study) were carried out in India, Sweden and Nepal. The studies included women with gestational ages up to 14 weeks for surgical abortion and nine weeks for medical abortion.Risk of selection bias was considered to be low in the three RCTs, unclear in four observational studies and high in one observational study. Concealment bias was considered to be low in the three RCTs and high in all five observational studies. Although none of the eight studies performed blinding of the participants to the provider type, we considered the performance bias to be low as this is part of the intervention. Detection bias was considered to be high in all eight studies as none of the eight studies preformed blinding of the outcome assessment. Attrition bias was low in seven studies and high in one, with over 20% attrition. We considered six studies to have unclear risk of selective reporting bias as their protocols had not been published. The remaining two studies had published their protocols. Few other sources of bias were found.Based on an analysis of three cohort studies, the risk of surgical abortion failure was significantly higher when provided by mid-level providers than when procedures were administered by doctors (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.68), however the quality of evidence for this outcome was deemed to be very low. For surgical abortion procedures, we found no significant differences in the risk of complications between mid-level providers and doctors (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.17 to 5.70 from RCTs; RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.72 from observational studies). When we combined the data for failure and complications for surgical abortion we found no significant differences between mid-level providers and doctors in both the observational study analysis (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.14) and the RCT analysis (RR 3.07, 95% CI 0.16 to 59.08). The quality of evidence of the outcome for RCT studies was considered to be low and for observational studies very low. For medical abortion procedures the risk of failure was not different for mid-level providers or doctors (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.36 from RCTs; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.88 from observational studies). The quality of evidence of this outcome for the RCT analysis was considered to be high, although the quality of evidence of the observational studies was considered to be very low. There were no complications reported in the three medical abortion studies. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of failure for medical abortions performed by mid-level providers compared with doctors. Observational data indicate that there may be a higher risk of abortion failure for surgical abortion procedures administered by mid-level providers, but the number of studies is small and more robust data from controlled trials are needed. There were no statistically significant differences in the risk of complications for first trimester surgical abortions performed by mid-level providers compared with doctors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26214844      PMCID: PMC9188302          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011242.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  28 in total

1.  Abortion: is it a step too far for nurses?

Authors:  Jack Shamash
Journal:  Nurs Times       Date:  2002 Jul 9-15

2.  Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008.

Authors:  Gilda Sedgh; Susheela Singh; Iqbal H Shah; Elisabeth Ahman; Stanley K Henshaw; Akinrinola Bankole
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2012-01-19       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Mid-level providers: a safe solution for unsafe abortion.

Authors:  Yap-Seng Chong; Citra Nurfarah Mattar
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2006-12-02       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Non-physician clinicians in 47 sub-Saharan African countries.

Authors:  Fitzhugh Mullan; Seble Frehywot
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2007-12-22       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Provision of abortion by mid-level providers: international policy, practice and perspectives.

Authors:  Marge Berer
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 9.408

6.  Physicians' and non-physicians' views about provision of medical abortion by nurses and AYUSH physicians in Maharashtra and Bihar, India.

Authors:  Rajib Acharya; Shveta Kalyanwala
Journal:  Reprod Health Matters       Date:  2015-02

Review 7.  Who can provide effective and safe termination of pregnancy care? A systematic review*.

Authors:  R-M Renner; D Brahmi; N Kapp
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2012-08-20       Impact factor: 6.531

8.  Participation of nurses in abortions.

Authors:  P L Neustatter
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1980-11-29       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Rates of complication in first-trimester manual vacuum aspiration abortion done by doctors and mid-level providers in South Africa and Vietnam: a randomised controlled equivalence trial.

Authors:  I K Warriner; O Meirik; M Hoffman; C Morroni; J Harries; N T My Huong; N D Vy; A H Seuc
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2006-12-02       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Morbidity and mortality due to unsafe abortion in Pakistan.

Authors:  Zunaira Shaikh; Razia Mustafa Abbassi; Naushaba Rizwan; Sumera Abbasi
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2010-04-14       Impact factor: 3.561

View more
  20 in total

1.  Abortion services and providers in Canada in 2019: results of a national survey.

Authors:  Regina M Renner; Madeleine Ennis; Damien Contandriopoulos; Edith Guilbert; Sheila Dunn; Janusz Kaczorowski; Elizabeth K Darling; Arianne Albert; Claire Styffe; Wendy V Norman
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2022-09-27

Review 2.  Medical methods for first trimester abortion.

Authors:  Jing Zhang; Kunyan Zhou; Dan Shan; Xiaoyan Luo
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-05-24

3.  Medical students are afraid to include abortion in their future practices: in-depth interviews in Maharastra, India.

Authors:  Susanne Sjöström; Birgitta Essén; Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson; Marie Klingberg-Allvin
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 2.463

Review 4.  Effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of first-trimester medical termination of pregnancy performed by non-doctor providers: a systematic review.

Authors:  S Sjöström; M Dragoman; M S Fønhus; B Ganatra; K Gemzell-Danielsson
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2017-08-17       Impact factor: 6.531

5.  Changes in abortion service provision in Bihar and Jharkhand states, India between 2004 and 2013.

Authors:  Andreea A Creanga; Kaushalendra K Singh; Qingfeng Li; Timothee Fruhauf; Amy O Tsui
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-06-07       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Mid-level health providers for primary healthcare: a rapid evidence synthesis.

Authors:  Sandeep Moola; Soumyadeep Bhaumik; Devaki Nambiar
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2020-06-16

Review 7.  Doctors or mid-level providers for abortion.

Authors:  Sharmani Barnard; Caron Kim; Min Hae Park; Thoai D Ngo
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-07-27

8.  Using task analysis to generate evidence for strengthening midwifery education, practice, and regulation in Ethiopia.

Authors:  Tegbar Yigzaw; Catherine Carr; Jelle Stekelenburg; Jos van Roosmalen; Hannah Gibson; Mintwab Gelagay; Azeb Admassu
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2016-05-27

9.  Determination of medical abortion eligibility by women and community health volunteers in Nepal: A toolkit evaluation.

Authors:  Kathryn Andersen; Mary Fjerstad; Indira Basnett; Shailes Neupane; Valerie Acre; Sharad Kumar Sharma; Emily Jackson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-07       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Bridging the human resource gap in surgical and anesthesia care in low-resource countries: a review of the task sharing literature.

Authors:  Tigistu Ashengo; Alena Skeels; Elizabeth J H Hurwitz; Eric Thuo; Harshad Sanghvi
Journal:  Hum Resour Health       Date:  2017-11-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.