MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317895769 · doi:10.1370/afm.21.s1.3602

Is Medical Abortion Feasible in Primary Care? Regulating Mifepristone as a Normal Prescription: Effect on Abortion Workforce

2023· article· en· W4317895769 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wendy V. Norman, Liz Darling, Janusz Kaczorowski, Sheila Dunn, Laura Schummers, Michael R. Law, Kimberlyn McGrail

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMifepristoneAbortionMedical abortionMedicineMedical prescriptionWorkforcePharmacyContext (archaeology)PopulationFamily medicineObstetricsNursingMisoprostolEnvironmental healthPregnancyEconomic growthGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Context:</h3> Prior to 2017, most abortions in Canada were surgical and provided by a small number of physicians, mainly in urban areas. The medical abortion pill mifepristone first became available in Jan 2017. By Nov 2017 the regulations were globally unique; mifepristone was treated as a normal prescription drug. Both physicians and nurse-practitioners (NPs) can prescribe, and any pharmacist can dispense the pill for self-administration by the patient at a convenient time and place. We hypothesized the unique regulation of mifepristone would increase the size and distribution of the abortion workforce, particularly in primary care, and thus reduce rural-urban access disparity. <h3>Objective:</h3> We investigated trends for abortion rate, method, and workforce. <h3>Setting and Dataset:</h3> Ontario, including 40% of Canada’s residents, linked health administrative data. <h3>Study design and Analysis:</h3> We defined all abortions from Jan 1, 2012 to Mar 10, 2020, using practitioner visits, hospital, emergency and ambulatory care admissions, and dispensed pharmaceuticals. We used interrupted time series (ITS) analysis to compare temporal trends in abortion rate, method, and workforce composition. <h3>Population:</h3> All most responsible professionals providing abortion (MRP-A), defining one MRP-A per abortion. <h3>Intervention:</h3> We compared MRP-A prior to mifepristone (Jan 2012 to Jan 2017), to once it was available to prescribe normally (Nov 7, 2017 – Mar 10, 2020). <h3>Outcome Measures:</h3> Trends and rates for the number and characteristics of MRP-A: age, specialty, rural vs urban, abortion method, service volume and rate of providers per 1000 female residents aged 15-49 years (1Kfem15-49) per health region. <h3>Results:</h3> Among all 315,447 abortions we identified an MRP-A for 311,742 (98.3%). The abortion rate was stable 2012-2020, approximately 11 per 1Kfem15-49 while the percent as medical abortion increased from 2.2% to 31.4%. The rate of MRP per 1Kfem15-49 tripled. The rate of rural MRP-A increased seven-fold while the rate of rural physicians did not change. Mean age of MRP-As fell 6.9 years. By the end of the study period most MRP-As were GPs (66.5%) with 23.2% OBGyns and 9.1% NPs. <h3>Conclusions:</h3> When regulatory change supported primary care friendly approaches to medical abortion, it was rapidly implemented in both urban and rural primary care. We observed a tripling of the overall number of abortion providers, including a seven-fold increase in rural areas, while the abortion rate was stable.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207