Comparison of treatment of incomplete abortion with misoprostol by physicians and midwives at district level in Uganda : a randomised controlled equivalence trial

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. FUNDING: The Swedish Research Council, Karolinska Institutet, and Dalarna University.

Women's acceptability of misoprostol treatment for incomplete abortion by midwives and physicians : secondary outcome analysis from a randomized controlled equivalence trial at district level in Uganda

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.

Acceptability of home-assessment post medical abortion and medical abortion in a low-resource setting in Rajasthan, India : Secondary outcome analysis of a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

Background: Studies evaluating acceptability of simplified follow-up after medical abortion have focused on high-resource or urban settings where telephones, road connections, and modes of transport are available and where women have formal education. Objective: To investigate women's acceptability of home-assessment of abortion and whether acceptability of medical abortion differs by in-clinic or home-assessment of abortion outcome in a low-resource setting in India. Design: Secondary outcome of a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Setting Outpatient primary health care clinics in rural and urban Rajasthan, India. Population: Women were eligible if they sought abortion with a gestation up to 9 weeks, lived within defined study area and agreed to follow-up. Women were ineligible if they had known contraindications to medical abortion, haemoglobin < 85mg/l and were below 18 years. Methods: Abortion outcome assessment through routine clinic follow-up by a doctor was compared with home-assessment using a low-sensitivity pregnancy test and a pictorial instruction sheet. A computerized random number generator generated the randomisation sequence (1: 1) in blocks of six. Research assistants randomly allocated eligible women who opted for medical abortion (mifepristone and misoprostol), using opaque sealed envelopes. Blinding during outcome assessment was not possible. Main outcome measures: Women's acceptability of home-assessment was measured as future preference of follow-up. Overall satisfaction, expectations, and comparison with previous abortion experiences were compared between study groups. Results: 731 women were randomized to the clinic follow-up group (n = 353) or home-assessment group (n = 378). 623 (85%) women were successfully followed up, of those 597 (96%) were satisfied and 592 (95%) found the abortion better or as expected, with no difference between study groups. The majority, 355 (57%) women, preferred home-assessment in the event of a future abortion. Significantly more women, 284 (82%), in the home-assessment group preferred home-assessment in the future, as compared with 188 (70%) of women in the clinic follow-up group, who preferred clinic follow-up in the future (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Home-assessment is highly acceptable among women in low-resource, and rural, settings. The choice to follow-up an early medical abortion according to women's preference should be offered to foster women's reproductive autonomy.

Does mode of follow-up influence contraceptive use after medical abortion in a low-resource setting? Secondary outcome analysis of a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Post-abortion contraceptive use in India is low and the use of modern methods of contraception is rare, especially in rural areas. This study primarily compares contraceptive use among women whose abortion outcome was assessed in-clinic with women who assessed their abortion outcome at home, in a low-resource, primary health care setting. Moreover, it investigates how background characteristics and abortion service provision influences contraceptive use post-abortion. METHODS: A randomized controlled, non-inferiority, trial (RCT) compared clinic follow-up with home-assessment of abortion outcome at 2 weeks post-abortion. Additionally, contraceptive-use at 3 months post-abortion was investigated through a cross-sectional follow-up interview with a largely urban sub-sample of women from the RCT. Women seeking abortion with a gestational age of up to 9 weeks and who agreed to a 2-week follow-up were included (n = 731). Women with known contraindications to medical abortions, Hb < 85 mg/l and aged below 18 were excluded. Data were collected between April 2013 and August 2014 in six primary health-care clinics in Rajasthan. A computerised random number generator created the randomisation sequence (1:1) in blocks of six. Contraceptive use was measured at 2 weeks among women successfully followed-up (n = 623) and 3 months in the sub-set of women who were included if they were recruited at one of the urban study sites, owned a phone and agreed to a 3-month follow-up (n = 114). RESULTS: There were no differences between contraceptive use and continuation between study groups at 3 months (76 % clinic follow-up, 77 % home-assessment), however women in the clinic follow-up group were most likely to adopt a contraceptive method at 2 weeks (62 ± 12 %), while women in the home-assessment group were most likely to adopt a method after next menstruation (60 ± 13 %). Fifty-two per cent of women who initiated a method at 2 weeks chose the 3-month injection or the copper intrauterine device. Only 4 % of women preferred sterilization. Caste, educational attainment, or type of residence did not influence contraceptive use. CONCLUSIONS: Simplified follow-up after early medical abortion will not change women's opportunities to access contraception in a low-resource setting, if contraceptive services are provided as intra-abortion services as early as on day one. Women's postabortion contraceptive use at 3 months is unlikely to be affected by mode of followup after medical abortion, also in a low-resource setting. Clinical guidelines need to encourage intra-abortion contraception, offering the full spectrum of evidence-based methods, especially long-acting reversible methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01827995.