OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of midwives administering misoprostol to women with incomplete abortion seeking post-abortion care (PAC), compared with physicians.
DESIGN: A multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial. The study was not masked.
SETTINGS: Gynaecological departments in two hospitals in a low-resource setting, Kenya.
POPULATION: Women (n=1094) with incomplete abortion in the first trimester, seeking PAC between 1 June 2013 to 31 May 2016. Participants were randomly assigned to receive treatment from midwives or physicians. 409 and 401 women in the midwife and physician groups, respectively, were included in the per-protocol analysis.
INTERVENTIONS: 600 µg misoprostol orally, and contraceptive counselling by a physician or midwife.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Complete abortion not needing surgical intervention within 7-10 days. The main outcome was analysed on the per-protocol population with a generalised estimating equation model. The predefined equivalence range was -4% to 4%. Secondary outcomes were analysed descriptively.
RESULTS: The proportion of complete abortion was 94.8% (768/810): 390 (95.4%) in the midwife group and 378 (94.3%) in the physician group. The proportion of incomplete abortion was 5.2% (42/810), similarly distributed between midwives and physicians. The model-based risk difference for midwives versus physicians was 1.0% (-4.1 to 2.2). Most women felt safe (97%; 779/799), and 93% (748/801) perceived the treatment as expected/easier than expected. After contraceptive counselling the uptake of a contraceptive method after 7-10 days occurred in 76% (613/810). No serious adverse events were recorded.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of incomplete abortion with misoprostol provided by midwives is equally effective, safe and accepted by women as when administered by physicians in a low-resource setting. Systematically provided contraceptive counselling in PAC is effective to mitigate unmet need for contraception.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01865136; Results.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess women´s acceptability of diagnosis and treatment of incomplete abortion with misoprostol by midwives, compared with physicians.
METHODS: This was an analysis of secondary outcomes from a multi-centre randomized controlled equivalence trial at district level in Uganda. Women with first trimester incomplete abortion were randomly allocated to clinical assessment and treatment with misoprostol by a physician or a midwife. The randomisation (1:1) was done in blocks of 12 and stratified for health care facility. Acceptability was measured in expectations and satisfaction at a follow up visit 14-28 days following treatment. Analysis of women's overall acceptability was done using a generalized linear mixed-effects model with an equivalence range of -4% to 4%. The study was not masked. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.org, NCT 01844024.
RESULTS: From April 2013 to June 2014, 1108 women were assessed for eligibility of which 1010 were randomized (506 to midwife and 504 to physician). 953 women were successfully followed up and included in the acceptability analysis. 95% (904) of the participants found the treatment satisfactory and overall acceptability was found to be equivalent between the two study groups. Treatment failure, not feeling calm and safe following treatment, experiencing severe abdominal pain or heavy bleeding following treatment, were significantly associated with non-satisfaction. No serious adverse events were recorded.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of incomplete abortion with misoprostol by midwives and physician was highly, and equally, acceptable to women.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01844024.
Objective To examine the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of nurse provision of early medical abortion compared to physicians at three facilities in Mexico City. Methods We conducted a randomized non-inferiority trial on the provision of medical abortion and contraceptive counselling by physicians or nurses. The participants were pregnant women seeking abortion at a gestational duration of 70 days or less. The medical abortion regimen was 200 mg of oral mifepristone taken on-site followed by 800 μg of misoprostol self-administered buccally at home 24 hours later. Women were instructed to return to the clinic for follow-up 7-15 days later. We did an intention-to-treat analysis for risk differences between physicians' and nurses' provision for completion and the need for surgical intervention. Findings Of 1017 eligible women, 884 women were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, 450 in the physician-provision arm and 434 in the nurse-provision arm. Women who completed medical abortion, without the need for surgical intervention, were 98.4% (443/450) for physicians' provision and 97.9% (425/434) for nurses' provision. The risk difference between the group was 0.5% (95% confidence interval, CI: −1.2% to 2.3%). There were no differences between providers for examined gestational duration or women's contraceptive method uptake. Both types of providers were rated by the women as highly acceptable. Conclusion Nurses' provision of medical abortion is as safe, acceptable and effective as provision by physicians in this setting. Authorizing nurses to provide medical abortion can help to meet the demand for safe abortion services.
BACKGROUND: Misoprostol is established for the treatment of incomplete abortion but has not been systematically assessed when provided by midwives at district level in a low-resource setting. We investigated the effectiveness and safety of midwives diagnosing and treating incomplete abortion with misoprostol, compared with physicians. METHODS: We did a multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial at district level at six facilities in Uganda. Eligibility criteria were women with signs of incomplete abortion. We randomly allocated women with first-trimester incomplete abortion to clinical assessment and treatment with misoprostol either by a physician or a midwife. The randomisation (1:1) was done in blocks of 12 and was stratified for study site. Primary outcome was complete abortion not needing surgical intervention within 14–28 days after initial treatment. The study was not masked. Analysis of the primary outcome was done on the per-protocol population with a generalised linear-mixed effects model. The predefined equivalence range was −4% to 4%. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01844024. FINDINGS: From April 30, 2013, to July 21, 2014, 1108 women were assessed for eligibility. 1010 women were randomly assigned to each group (506 to midwife group and 504 to physician group). 955 women (472 in the midwife group and 483 in the physician group) were included in the per-protocol analysis. 452 (95·8%) of women in the midwife group had complete abortion and 467 (96·7%) in the physician group. The model-based risk difference for midwife versus physician group was −0·8% (95% CI −2·9 to 1·4), falling within the predefined equivalence range (−4% to 4%). The overall proportion of women with incomplete abortion was 3·8% (36/955), similarly distributed between the two groups (4·2% [20/472] in the midwife group, 3·3% [16/483] in the physician group). No serious adverse events were recorded. INTERPRETATION: Diagnosis and treatment of incomplete abortion with misoprostol by midwives is equally safe and effective as when provided by physicians, in a low-resource setting. Scaling up midwives' involvement in treatment of incomplete abortion with misoprostol at district level would increase access to safe post-abortion care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
BACKGROUND: Medical abortion is under-used in developing countries. We assessed whether early first-trimester medical abortion provided by midlevel providers (government-trained, certified nurses and auxiliary nurse midwives) was as safe and effective as that provided by doctors in Nepal. METHODS: This multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial was done in five rural district hospitals in Nepal. Women were eligible for medical abortion if their pregnancy was of less than 9 weeks (63 days) and if they resided less than 90 min journey away from the study clinic. Women were ineligible if they had any contraindication to medical abortion. We used a computer-generated randomisation scheme stratified by study centre with a block size of six. Women were randomly assigned to a doctor or a midlevel provider for oral administration of 200 mg mifepristone followed by 800 μg misoprostol vaginally 2 days later, and followed up 10–14 days later. The primary endpoint was complete abortion without manual vacuum aspiration within 30 days of treatment. The study was not masked. Abortions were recorded as complete, incomplete, or failed (continuing pregnancy). Analyses for primary and secondary endpoints were by intention to treat, supplemented by per-protocol analysis of the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01186302. FINDINGS: Of 1295 women screened, 535 were randomly assigned to a doctor and 542 to a midlevel provider. 514 and 518, respectively, were included in the analyses of the primary endpoint. Abortions were judged complete in 504 (97·3%) women assigned to midlevel providers and in 494 (96·1%) assigned to physicians. The risk difference for complete abortion was 1·24% (95% CI –0·53 to 3·02), which falls within the predefined equivalence range (–5% to 5%). Five cases (1%) were recorded as failed abortion in the doctor cohort and none in the midlevel provider cohort; the remaining cases were recorded as incomplete abortions. No serious complications were noted. INTERPRETATION: The provision of medical abortion up to 9 weeks’ gestation by midlevel providers and doctors was similar in safety and effectiveness. Where permitted by law, appropriately trained midlevel health-care providers can provide safe, low-technology medical abortion services for women independently from doctors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
