BackgroundIncreased access to home-based medical abortion may offer women a convenient, safe and effective abortion method, reduce burdens on healthcare systems and support social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Home-based medical abortion is defined as any abortion where mifepristone, misoprostol or both medications are taken at home.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRSs) were conducted. We searched databases from inception to 10 July 2019 and 14 June 2020. Successful abortion was the main outcome of interest. Eligible studies were RCTs and NRSs studies with a concurrent comparison group comparing home versus clinic-based medical abortion. Risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% CIs were calculated. Estimates were calculated using a random-effects model. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess risk of bias by outcome and to evaluate the overall quality of the evidence.ResultsWe identified 6277 potentially eligible published studies. Nineteen studies (3 RCTs and 16 NRSs) were included with 11 576 women seeking abortion up to 9 weeks gestation. Neither the RCTs nor the NRS found any difference between home-based and clinic-based administration of medical abortion in having a successful abortion (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01, I2=0%; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.01, I2=52%, respectively). The certainty of the evidence for the 16 NRSs was downgraded from low to very low due to high risk of bias and publication bias. The certainty of the evidence for the three RCTs was downgraded from high to moderate by one level for high risk of bias.ConclusionHome-based medical abortion is effective, safe and acceptable to women. This evidence should be used to expand women’s abortion options and ensure access to abortion for women during COVID-19 and beyond.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020183171.

Objectives Little is known about the experiences of women who travel within Europe for abortion care from countries with relatively liberal laws. This paper aims to assess the primary reasons for travel among a sample of women who travelled from European countries with relatively liberal abortion laws to obtain abortion care mainly in the UK and the Netherlands. Design Multi-country, 5-year mixed methods study on barriers to legal abortion and travel for abortion. Setting UK, the Netherlands and Spain. Population or Sample We present quantitative data from 204 surveys, and qualitative data from 30 in-depth interviews with pregnant people who travelled to the UK, the Netherlands and Spain from countries where abortion is legal on broad grounds within specific gestational age (GA) limits. Methods Mixed-methods. Main outcome measures GA when presenting at abortion clinic, primary reason for abortion-related travel. Results Study participants overwhelmingly reported travelling for abortion because they had exceeded GA limits in their country of residence. Participants also reported numerous delays and barriers to receiving care. Conclusions Our findings highlight the need for policies that support access to abortion throughout pregnancy and illustrate that early access to it is necessary but not sufficient to meet people's reproductive health needs.

Background The laws governing abortion access vary across Europe. Even in countries with relatively liberal laws, numerous barriers to abortion access exist. In response to these barriers, evidence suggests that people living in countries with both restrictive and liberal laws travel outside of their home country for abortion care. England and Wales are common destinations for those who travel to seek abortions, but little is known about the motivations and experiences of those who undertake cross-country travel to England or Wales to obtain care. This paper aims to describe the abortion seeking and travel experiences of women and pregnant people who traveled to England and Wales for an abortion between 2017 and 2019. Methods We recruited 97 participants who had traveled cross-country from both liberal and restrictive contexts to seek abortion care at three participating BPAS clinics in England and Wales. Participants completed an electronic survey about their reproductive histories, abortion decision-making, experiences seeking abortion care, and traveling. We conducted a descriptive analysis, and include comparisons between participants who traveled from liberal and restrictive contexts. Results Over a third of participants considered abortion four weeks or more before presenting for care at BPAS, and around two-thirds sought abortion services in their home country before traveling. The majority of participants indicated that they would have preferred to have obtained an abortion earlier and cited reasons including scheduling issues, a dearth of local services, delayed pregnancy recognition, and financial difficulties as causing their delay. About seventy percent of participants reported travel costs between €101–1000 and 75% of participants reported that the cost of the abortion procedure exceeded €500. About half of participants indicated that, overall, their travel was very or somewhat difficult. Conclusions This analysis documents the burdens associated with cross-country travel for abortion and provides insight into the factors that compel people to travel. Our findings highlight the need for expanded access to abortion care throughout Europe via the removal of legal impediments and other social or procedural barriers. Removing barriers would eliminate the need for cumbersome abortion travel, and ensure that all people can obtain necessary, high-quality healthcare in their own communities.

Access to abortion throughout much of Mexico has been restricted. Fondo Maria is an abortion accompaniment fund that provides informational, logistical, financial, and emotional support to people seeking abortion care in Mexico. This cross-sectional study examines the factors that influenced decision-making and contributed to delays in accessing care and explores experiences with Fondo Maria’s support among women living outside Mexico City (CDMX). We describe and compare the experiences of women across the sample ( n = 103) who were either supported by Fondo Maria to travel to CDMX to obtain an abortion ( n = 60), or self-managed a medical abortion in their home state ( n = 43). Data were collected between January 2017 and July 2018. Seventy-seven percent of participants reported that it was difficult to access abortion care in their home state and 34% of participants indicated they were delayed in accessing care, primarily due to a lack of financial support. The majority of participants (58%) who travelled to CDMX for their abortion did so because it seemed safer. The money/cost of the trip was the most commonly cited reason (33%) why participants who self-managed stayed in their home state. Eighty-seven percent of participants said Fondo Maria’s services met or exceeded their expectations. Our data suggest that people seeking abortion and living outside CDMX face multiple and overlapping barriers that can delay care-seeking and influence decision-making. Abortion accompaniment networks, such as Fondo Maria, offer a well-received model of support for people seeking abortion in restrictive states across Mexico.

No abstract