Cargando…

Exploring the impact of mifepristone’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) on the integration of medication abortion into US family medicine primary care clinics()

OBJECTIVES: In 2000, the United States’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved mifepristone for medication abortion. In this article, we explore how the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) criteria for mifepristone specifically impede family physicians’ ability to provide medication...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Razon, Na’amah, Wulf, Sarah, Perez, Citlali, McNeil, Sarah, Maldonado, Lisa, Byrne Fields, Alison, Carvajal, Diana, Logan, Rachel, Dehlendorf, Christine
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9018589/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35131289
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2022.01.017
_version_ 1784689059779575808
author Razon, Na’amah
Wulf, Sarah
Perez, Citlali
McNeil, Sarah
Maldonado, Lisa
Byrne Fields, Alison
Carvajal, Diana
Logan, Rachel
Dehlendorf, Christine
author_facet Razon, Na’amah
Wulf, Sarah
Perez, Citlali
McNeil, Sarah
Maldonado, Lisa
Byrne Fields, Alison
Carvajal, Diana
Logan, Rachel
Dehlendorf, Christine
author_sort Razon, Na’amah
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: In 2000, the United States’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved mifepristone for medication abortion. In this article, we explore how the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) criteria for mifepristone specifically impede family physicians’ ability to provide medication abortion in primary care settings. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted 56 qualitative interviews with a national sample of family physicians across the US who were not opposed to abortion. We examined how the REMS criteria for mifepristone impact family physicians’ ability to provide medication abortion. RESULTS: Of the 56 interviews conducted, 23 participants (41%) raised the REMS criteria as a barrier to providing medication abortion in primary care. These participants reported the REMS added a layer of bureaucratic complexity that made it difficult for family physicians to navigate, even when trained, to provide abortion care. These family physicians described 2 predominant ways the REMS impede their ability to provide medication abortion: (1) The REMS require substantial involvement of clinic administration, who can be unsupportive; (2) The complexity of navigating the REMS results in physicians and clinic administration in primary care viewing medication abortion as not worth the effort, since it is only a small component of services offered in primary care. CONCLUSION: Removing the REMS could simplify integration of medication abortion into primary care, which could meet patient preferences, improve access, and reduce abortion stigma. The FDA’s revised REMS criteria may ease administrative burden but will likely maintain key barriers to integrating medication abortion into family physicians’ practice. IMPLICATIONS: Our study highlights that the REMS criteria are barriers to family physicians’ ability to integrate medication abortion into their primary care practices. The FDA’s removal of in person dispensing criteria may provide some impetus for trained family physicians to integrate medication abortion into their scope of practice but the revised REMS criteria maintain key barriers to broader adoption.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9018589
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90185892022-05-01 Exploring the impact of mifepristone’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) on the integration of medication abortion into US family medicine primary care clinics() Razon, Na’amah Wulf, Sarah Perez, Citlali McNeil, Sarah Maldonado, Lisa Byrne Fields, Alison Carvajal, Diana Logan, Rachel Dehlendorf, Christine Contraception Article OBJECTIVES: In 2000, the United States’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved mifepristone for medication abortion. In this article, we explore how the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) criteria for mifepristone specifically impede family physicians’ ability to provide medication abortion in primary care settings. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted 56 qualitative interviews with a national sample of family physicians across the US who were not opposed to abortion. We examined how the REMS criteria for mifepristone impact family physicians’ ability to provide medication abortion. RESULTS: Of the 56 interviews conducted, 23 participants (41%) raised the REMS criteria as a barrier to providing medication abortion in primary care. These participants reported the REMS added a layer of bureaucratic complexity that made it difficult for family physicians to navigate, even when trained, to provide abortion care. These family physicians described 2 predominant ways the REMS impede their ability to provide medication abortion: (1) The REMS require substantial involvement of clinic administration, who can be unsupportive; (2) The complexity of navigating the REMS results in physicians and clinic administration in primary care viewing medication abortion as not worth the effort, since it is only a small component of services offered in primary care. CONCLUSION: Removing the REMS could simplify integration of medication abortion into primary care, which could meet patient preferences, improve access, and reduce abortion stigma. The FDA’s revised REMS criteria may ease administrative burden but will likely maintain key barriers to integrating medication abortion into family physicians’ practice. IMPLICATIONS: Our study highlights that the REMS criteria are barriers to family physicians’ ability to integrate medication abortion into their primary care practices. The FDA’s removal of in person dispensing criteria may provide some impetus for trained family physicians to integrate medication abortion into their scope of practice but the revised REMS criteria maintain key barriers to broader adoption. 2022-05 2022-02-04 /pmc/articles/PMC9018589/ /pubmed/35131289 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2022.01.017 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) )
spellingShingle Article
Razon, Na’amah
Wulf, Sarah
Perez, Citlali
McNeil, Sarah
Maldonado, Lisa
Byrne Fields, Alison
Carvajal, Diana
Logan, Rachel
Dehlendorf, Christine
Exploring the impact of mifepristone’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) on the integration of medication abortion into US family medicine primary care clinics()
title Exploring the impact of mifepristone’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) on the integration of medication abortion into US family medicine primary care clinics()
title_full Exploring the impact of mifepristone’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) on the integration of medication abortion into US family medicine primary care clinics()
title_fullStr Exploring the impact of mifepristone’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) on the integration of medication abortion into US family medicine primary care clinics()
title_full_unstemmed Exploring the impact of mifepristone’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) on the integration of medication abortion into US family medicine primary care clinics()
title_short Exploring the impact of mifepristone’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) on the integration of medication abortion into US family medicine primary care clinics()
title_sort exploring the impact of mifepristone’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (rems) on the integration of medication abortion into us family medicine primary care clinics()
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9018589/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35131289
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2022.01.017
work_keys_str_mv AT razonnaamah exploringtheimpactofmifepristonesriskevaluationandmitigationstrategyremsontheintegrationofmedicationabortionintousfamilymedicineprimarycareclinics
AT wulfsarah exploringtheimpactofmifepristonesriskevaluationandmitigationstrategyremsontheintegrationofmedicationabortionintousfamilymedicineprimarycareclinics
AT perezcitlali exploringtheimpactofmifepristonesriskevaluationandmitigationstrategyremsontheintegrationofmedicationabortionintousfamilymedicineprimarycareclinics
AT mcneilsarah exploringtheimpactofmifepristonesriskevaluationandmitigationstrategyremsontheintegrationofmedicationabortionintousfamilymedicineprimarycareclinics
AT maldonadolisa exploringtheimpactofmifepristonesriskevaluationandmitigationstrategyremsontheintegrationofmedicationabortionintousfamilymedicineprimarycareclinics
AT byrnefieldsalison exploringtheimpactofmifepristonesriskevaluationandmitigationstrategyremsontheintegrationofmedicationabortionintousfamilymedicineprimarycareclinics
AT carvajaldiana exploringtheimpactofmifepristonesriskevaluationandmitigationstrategyremsontheintegrationofmedicationabortionintousfamilymedicineprimarycareclinics
AT loganrachel exploringtheimpactofmifepristonesriskevaluationandmitigationstrategyremsontheintegrationofmedicationabortionintousfamilymedicineprimarycareclinics
AT dehlendorfchristine exploringtheimpactofmifepristonesriskevaluationandmitigationstrategyremsontheintegrationofmedicationabortionintousfamilymedicineprimarycareclinics