Sarah Munro1, Edith Guilbert1, Marie-Soleil Wagner1, Elizabeth S Wilcox1, Courtney Devane1, Sheila Dunn1, Melissa Brooks1, Judith A Soon1, Megan Mills1, Genevieve Leduc-Robert1, Kate Wahl1, Erik Zannier1, Wendy V Norman2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (S.M., K.W.); Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, Providence Health Care Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (S.M, E.S.W.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada (E.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (M.W.); School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (E.S.W.); School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (C.D.); Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (S.D.); Women's College Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (S.D.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada (M.B.); Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (J.A.S.); Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (M.M., G.L., E.Z); Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (W.V.N.); Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom (W.V.N.). 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (S.M., K.W.); Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, Providence Health Care Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (S.M, E.S.W.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada (E.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (M.W.); School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (E.S.W.); School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (C.D.); Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (S.D.); Women's College Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (S.D.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada (M.B.); Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (J.A.S.); Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (M.M., G.L., E.Z); Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (W.V.N.); Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom (W.V.N.). wendy.norman@ubc.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Access to family planning health services in Canada has been historically inadequate and inequitable. A potential solution appeared when Health Canada approved mifepristone, the gold standard for medical abortion, in July 2015. We sought to investigate the factors that influence successful initiation and ongoing provision of medical abortion services among Canadian health professionals and how these factors relate to abortion policies, systems, and service access throughout Canada. METHODS: We conducted 1-on-1 semistructured interviews with a national sample of abortion-providing and nonproviding physicians and health system stakeholders in Canadian health care settings. Our data collection, thematic analysis, and interpretation were guided by Diffusion of Innovation theory. RESULTS: We conducted interviews with 90 participants including rural practitioners and those with no previous abortion experience. In the course of our study, Health Canada removed mifepristone restrictions. Our results suggest that Health Canada's initial restrictions discouraged physicians from providing mifepristone and were inconsistent with provincial licensing standards, thereby limiting patient access. Once deregulated, remaining factors were primarily related to local and regional implementation processes. Participants held strong perceptions that mifepristone was the new standard of care for medical abortion in Canada and within the scope of primary care practice. CONCLUSION: Health Canada's removal of mifepristone restrictions facilitated the implementation of abortion care in the primary care setting. Our results are unique because Canada is the first country to facilitate provision of medical abortion in primary care via evidence-based deregulation of mifepristone.
PURPOSE: Access to family planning health services in Canada has been historically inadequate and inequitable. A potential solution appeared when Health Canada approved mifepristone, the gold standard for medical abortion, in July 2015. We sought to investigate the factors that influence successful initiation and ongoing provision of medical abortion services among Canadian health professionals and how these factors relate to abortion policies, systems, and service access throughout Canada. METHODS: We conducted 1-on-1 semistructured interviews with a national sample of abortion-providing and nonproviding physicians and health system stakeholders in Canadian health care settings. Our data collection, thematic analysis, and interpretation were guided by Diffusion of Innovation theory. RESULTS: We conducted interviews with 90 participants including rural practitioners and those with no previous abortion experience. In the course of our study, Health Canada removed mifepristone restrictions. Our results suggest that Health Canada's initial restrictions discouraged physicians from providing mifepristone and were inconsistent with provincial licensing standards, thereby limiting patient access. Once deregulated, remaining factors were primarily related to local and regional implementation processes. Participants held strong perceptions that mifepristone was the new standard of care for medical abortion in Canada and within the scope of primary care practice. CONCLUSION: Health Canada's removal of mifepristone restrictions facilitated the implementation of abortion care in the primary care setting. Our results are unique because Canada is the first country to facilitate provision of medical abortion in primary care via evidence-based deregulation of mifepristone.
Authors: K S Joseph; Shiliang Liu; Jocelyn Rouleau; Russell S Kirby; Michael S Kramer; Reg Sauve; William D Fraser; David C Young; Robert M Liston Journal: J Obstet Gynaecol Can Date: 2010-09
Authors: Danielle Newton; Chris Bayly; Kathleen McNamee; Marie Bismark; Annarella Hardiman; Amy Webster; Louise Keogh Journal: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 2.100
Authors: Amanda Black; Edith Guilbert; Dustin Costescu; Sheila Dunn; William Fisher; Sari Kives; Melissa Mirosh; Wendy V Norman; Helen Pymar; Robert Reid; Geneviève Roy; Hannah Varto; Ashley Waddington; Marie-Soleil Wagner; Anne Marie Whelan; Carrie Ferguson; Claude Fortin; Maria Kielly; Shireen Mansouri; Nicole Todd Journal: J Obstet Gynaecol Can Date: 2015-10
Authors: Angela J Dawson; Rachel Nicolls; Deborah Bateson; Anna Doab; Jane Estoesta; Ann Brassil; Elizabeth A Sullivan Journal: Reprod Health Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 3.223
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
Authors: Sheila Dunn; Sarah Munro; Courtney Devane; Edith Guilbert; Dahn Jeong; Eleni Stroulia; Judith A Soon; Wendy V Norman Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Sarah Munro; Kate Wahl; Judith A Soon; Edith Guilbert; Elizabeth S Wilcox; Genevieve Leduc-Robert; Nadra Ansari; Courtney Devane; Wendy V Norman Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2021-08-03 Impact factor: 7.327