马萨诸塞州妇产科医生使用米非司酮治疗早期流产和人工流产的空间差异。

IF 1.6 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) Pub Date : 2024-10-04 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1089/whr.2024.0085
Emily Newton-Hoe, Alisa B Goldberg, Jennifer Fortin, Elizabeth Janiak, Sara Neill
{"title":"马萨诸塞州妇产科医生使用米非司酮治疗早期流产和人工流产的空间差异。","authors":"Emily Newton-Hoe, Alisa B Goldberg, Jennifer Fortin, Elizabeth Janiak, Sara Neill","doi":"10.1089/whr.2024.0085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>About 25% of pregnancies end in early miscarriage or abortion annually in the United States. While mifepristone is part of the most effective medication regimen for miscarriage and abortion, regulatory burdens and legal restrictions limit its provision in obstetric-gynecological practice. The extent of geographic disparities in mifepristone use is unknown.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We sought to ascertain whether regional \"deserts\" for mifepristone-based miscarriage and abortion care exist in Massachusetts using geographic regions specified by the Commonwealth's Executive Office of Health and Human Services.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We fielded a cross-sectional survey of obstetrician-gynecologists practicing in Massachusetts. We weighted survey data to account for differential nonresponse by provider sex, region, and years in independent practice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among obstetrician-gynecologists in independent practice with region data (<i>n</i> = 148), 51.0% reported using mifepristone for miscarriage and 43.5% for abortion. Significant differences in reported use were observed across regions (<i>p</i> < 0.001 for both indications). Barriers to using mifepristone for miscarriage management also varied across regions. Respondents outside of Boston and Western Massachusetts were more likely to report gaps in knowledge about regulations and prescribing and had less prior experience using mifepristone. In a multivariable model adjusting for provider sex and practice type, obstetrician-gynecologists outside of Boston had significantly lower odds of using mifepristone for miscarriage (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.14, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 0.08-0.25) and abortion (aOR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.26-0.82), compared to Boston-based obstetrician-gynecologists.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Mifepristone provision varies significantly by Massachusetts region. This may lead to spatial disparities in reproductive health outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":75329,"journal":{"name":"Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)","volume":"5 1","pages":"765-774"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11491581/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Spatial Disparities in Mifepristone Use for Early Miscarriage and Induced Abortion Among Obstetrician-Gynecologists Practicing in Massachusetts.\",\"authors\":\"Emily Newton-Hoe, Alisa B Goldberg, Jennifer Fortin, Elizabeth Janiak, Sara Neill\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/whr.2024.0085\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>About 25% of pregnancies end in early miscarriage or abortion annually in the United States. While mifepristone is part of the most effective medication regimen for miscarriage and abortion, regulatory burdens and legal restrictions limit its provision in obstetric-gynecological practice. The extent of geographic disparities in mifepristone use is unknown.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We sought to ascertain whether regional \\\"deserts\\\" for mifepristone-based miscarriage and abortion care exist in Massachusetts using geographic regions specified by the Commonwealth's Executive Office of Health and Human Services.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We fielded a cross-sectional survey of obstetrician-gynecologists practicing in Massachusetts. We weighted survey data to account for differential nonresponse by provider sex, region, and years in independent practice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among obstetrician-gynecologists in independent practice with region data (<i>n</i> = 148), 51.0% reported using mifepristone for miscarriage and 43.5% for abortion. Significant differences in reported use were observed across regions (<i>p</i> < 0.001 for both indications). Barriers to using mifepristone for miscarriage management also varied across regions. Respondents outside of Boston and Western Massachusetts were more likely to report gaps in knowledge about regulations and prescribing and had less prior experience using mifepristone. In a multivariable model adjusting for provider sex and practice type, obstetrician-gynecologists outside of Boston had significantly lower odds of using mifepristone for miscarriage (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.14, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 0.08-0.25) and abortion (aOR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.26-0.82), compared to Boston-based obstetrician-gynecologists.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Mifepristone provision varies significantly by Massachusetts region. This may lead to spatial disparities in reproductive health outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"765-774\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11491581/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/whr.2024.0085\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/whr.2024.0085","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在美国,每年约有 25% 的妊娠以早期流产或人工流产告终。虽然米非司酮是治疗流产和人工流产最有效的药物方案的一部分,但监管负担和法律限制限制了其在妇产科实践中的应用。米非司酮使用的地域差异程度尚不清楚:我们试图通过马萨诸塞州卫生与公众服务执行办公室规定的地理区域,确定马萨诸塞州是否存在基于米非司酮的流产和堕胎护理的地区 "沙漠":我们对在马萨诸塞州执业的妇产科医生进行了横断面调查。我们对调查数据进行了加权处理,以考虑到医疗服务提供者的性别、地区和独立执业年限不同而导致的无响应情况:在有地区数据的独立执业妇产科医生中(n = 148),51.0% 的医生报告使用米非司酮治疗流产,43.5% 的医生报告使用米非司酮治疗流产。不同地区的报告使用率存在显著差异(两种适应症的 p 均小于 0.001)。使用米非司酮处理流产的障碍也因地区而异。波士顿和马萨诸塞州西部以外的受访者更有可能报告在法规和处方知识方面存在差距,而且之前使用米非司酮的经验较少。在调整医疗服务提供者性别和执业类型的多变量模型中,与波士顿的妇产科医生相比,波士顿以外的妇产科医生使用米非司酮治疗流产(调整后的几率比 [aOR] = 0.14,95% 置信区间 [95% CI] = 0.08-0.25)和堕胎(aOR = 0.46,95% CI = 0.26-0.82)的几率明显较低:结论:米非司酮的提供在马萨诸塞州各地区差异很大。这可能会导致生殖健康结果的空间差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Spatial Disparities in Mifepristone Use for Early Miscarriage and Induced Abortion Among Obstetrician-Gynecologists Practicing in Massachusetts.

Background: About 25% of pregnancies end in early miscarriage or abortion annually in the United States. While mifepristone is part of the most effective medication regimen for miscarriage and abortion, regulatory burdens and legal restrictions limit its provision in obstetric-gynecological practice. The extent of geographic disparities in mifepristone use is unknown.

Objectives: We sought to ascertain whether regional "deserts" for mifepristone-based miscarriage and abortion care exist in Massachusetts using geographic regions specified by the Commonwealth's Executive Office of Health and Human Services.

Methods: We fielded a cross-sectional survey of obstetrician-gynecologists practicing in Massachusetts. We weighted survey data to account for differential nonresponse by provider sex, region, and years in independent practice.

Results: Among obstetrician-gynecologists in independent practice with region data (n = 148), 51.0% reported using mifepristone for miscarriage and 43.5% for abortion. Significant differences in reported use were observed across regions (p < 0.001 for both indications). Barriers to using mifepristone for miscarriage management also varied across regions. Respondents outside of Boston and Western Massachusetts were more likely to report gaps in knowledge about regulations and prescribing and had less prior experience using mifepristone. In a multivariable model adjusting for provider sex and practice type, obstetrician-gynecologists outside of Boston had significantly lower odds of using mifepristone for miscarriage (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.14, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 0.08-0.25) and abortion (aOR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.26-0.82), compared to Boston-based obstetrician-gynecologists.

Conclusion: Mifepristone provision varies significantly by Massachusetts region. This may lead to spatial disparities in reproductive health outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Young Adults' Understanding of Modifiable Risk Factors of Infertility. Increased risks of Maternal Mental Health Conditions Following the COVID-19 Pandemic. Gut Akkermansia muciniphila, Prevotellaceae, and Enterobacteriaceae spp. as Possible Markers in Women-Related Nutritional and Clinical Trials: Familial Mediterranean Fever Disease. Impact of Illness Perception in Overweight and Obesity on Bio-Functional Age and Eating/Movement Behavior-A Follow-Up Study. Web-Based Development of Standard Operating Procedures and Midwifery Trainings at Ugandan Birth Clinic in the Framework of Implementing a Quality Improvement System for the MEWU-Midwife Exchange with Uganda.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1