Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 21, 2025
Introduction of Intracapsular Rotary-cut Procedures IRCP: A Modified Hysteromyomectomy Procedures Facilitating Fertility Preservation
Published on: January 17, 2019
Comparison of Early Pregnancy Loss Management Between States With Restrictive and Supportive Abortion Policies
Elana Tal1, Rachel Paul2, Megan Dorsey2
1Divisions of Family Planning & Clinical Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York.
Introduction:
Mifepristone-misoprostol and office uterine aspiration used for abortion care are also evidence-based, cost-effective strategies for early pregnancy loss management. We aimed to compare the provision of mifepristone-misoprostol and office uterine aspiration for early pregnancy loss between states with restrictive and supportive abortion policies.
Methods:
We conducted a cross-sectional, internet-based survey regarding early pregnancy loss management among obstetrician-gynecologists (OBGYNs) at academic medical centers. We assessed management offered along with facilitators and barriers to implementation of mifepristone-misoprostol and office uterine aspiration. We used χ2 and multivariable logistic regression to compare practice patterns.
Results:
We analyzed responses from 350 physicians, 56% from states with restrictive abortion policies. OBGYNs in states with restrictive abortion policies were less likely than those in states with supportive abortion policies to offer both mifepristone-misoprostol and office uterine aspiration (33.2% vs. 51.3%; p = .001), to report having received induced abortion training (67.3% vs. 89.6%; p < .001), and to report perceived institutional support for abortion care (49.0% vs. 85.0%; p < .001). After adjusting for confounders, restrictive state policy was no longer associated with providing both mifepristone-misoprostol and office uterine aspiration for early pregnancy loss (adjusted odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-2.45). However both prior induced abortion training and institutional support for abortion care remained significantly associated (adjusted odds ratio, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.07-3.97 and adjusted odds ratio, 3.91; 95% CI, 2.08-7.38, respectively).
Conclusions:
OBGYNs practicing in states with restrictive abortion policies are less likely than those in states with supportive abortion policies to have received abortion training or perceive institutional support for abortion care, and they are less likely to offer mifepristone-misoprostol and office uterine aspiration for early pregnancy loss.
