Marianne Bogen Kristiansen1, Benjamin C Shayo2,3, Rune Philemon2,3, Khalid Saeed Khan4,5, Vibeke Rasch6,7, Ditte Søndergaard Linde6,7,8. 1. University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 2. Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Center, Moshi, Tanzania. 3. Kilimanjaro Christian Medical University College, Moshi, Tanzania. 4. Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Granada, Granada, Spain. 5. CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Granada, Spain. 6. Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 8. Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg, Denmark.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Unsafe abortion is the cause of a substantial number of maternal mortalities and morbidities globally, but specifically in low- and middle-income countries. Medical abortion methods provided by non-physicians may be a way to reduce the burden of unsafe abortions. Currently, only one systematic review comparing non-physicians with physicians for medical abortion exists. However, the review does not have any setting restrictions and newer evidence has since been published. Therefore, this review aims to evaluate the effectiveness, acceptability, and safety of first-trimester abortion managed by non-physicians compared with physicians in low- and middle-income countries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, Global Health Library, and EMBASE were searched using a structured search strategy. Further, the trial registries clinicaltrials.gov and The International Clinical Trial Registry Platform were searched for published and unpublished trials. Randomized controlled trials comparing provision of medical abortion by non-physicians with that by physicians in low- or middle-income countries were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Trials that reported effect estimates on the effectiveness of medical methods on complete abortion were included in the meta-analysis. The protocol was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database, ID: CRD42020176811. RESULTS: Six papers from four different randomized controlled trials with a total of 4021 participants were included. Two of the four included trials were assessed to have overall low risk of bias. Four papers had outcome data on complete abortion and were included in the meta-analyses. Medical management of first-trimester abortion and medical treatment of incomplete abortion were found to be equally effective when provided by a non-physician as when provided by a physician (risk ratio 1.00; 95% CI 0.99-1.01). Further, the treatment was equally safe, and women were equally satisfied when a non-physician provided the treatment compared with a physician. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of medical abortion or medical treatment for incomplete abortion in the first trimester is equally effective, safe, and acceptable when provided by non-physicians compared with physicians in low- and middle-income countries. We recommend that the task of providing medical abortion and medical treatment for incomplete abortion in low- and middle-income countries should be shared with non-physicians.
INTRODUCTION: Unsafe abortion is the cause of a substantial number of maternal mortalities and morbidities globally, but specifically in low- and middle-income countries. Medical abortion methods provided by non-physicians may be a way to reduce the burden of unsafe abortions. Currently, only one systematic review comparing non-physicians with physicians for medical abortion exists. However, the review does not have any setting restrictions and newer evidence has since been published. Therefore, this review aims to evaluate the effectiveness, acceptability, and safety of first-trimester abortion managed by non-physicians compared with physicians in low- and middle-income countries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, Global Health Library, and EMBASE were searched using a structured search strategy. Further, the trial registries clinicaltrials.gov and The International Clinical Trial Registry Platform were searched for published and unpublished trials. Randomized controlled trials comparing provision of medical abortion by non-physicians with that by physicians in low- or middle-income countries were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Trials that reported effect estimates on the effectiveness of medical methods on complete abortion were included in the meta-analysis. The protocol was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database, ID: CRD42020176811. RESULTS: Six papers from four different randomized controlled trials with a total of 4021 participants were included. Two of the four included trials were assessed to have overall low risk of bias. Four papers had outcome data on complete abortion and were included in the meta-analyses. Medical management of first-trimester abortion and medical treatment of incomplete abortion were found to be equally effective when provided by a non-physician as when provided by a physician (risk ratio 1.00; 95% CI 0.99-1.01). Further, the treatment was equally safe, and women were equally satisfied when a non-physician provided the treatment compared with a physician. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of medical abortion or medical treatment for incomplete abortion in the first trimester is equally effective, safe, and acceptable when provided by non-physicians compared with physicians in low- and middle-income countries. We recommend that the task of providing medical abortion and medical treatment for incomplete abortion in low- and middle-income countries should be shared with non-physicians.