IMPORTANCE Multiple states have laws requiring abortion facilities to meet ambulatory surgery center (ASC) standards. There is limited evidence regarding abortion-related morbidities and adverse events following abortions performed at ASCs vs office-based settings. OBJECTIVE To compare abortion-related morbidities and adverse events at ASCs vs office-based settings. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective cohort study of women with US private health insurance who underwent induced abortions in an ASC or office-based setting (January 1, 2011-December 31, 2014). Outcomes were abstracted from a large national private insurance claims database during the 6 weeks following the abortion (date of final follow-up, February 11, 2015). EXPOSURES Facility type for abortion (ASCs vs office-based settings, including facilities such as abortion clinics, nonspecialized clinics, and physician offices). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was any abortion-related morbidity or adverse event (such as retained products of conception, abortion-related infection, hemorrhage, and uterine perforation) within 6 weeks after an abortion. Two secondary outcomes, both subsets of the primary outcome, were major abortion-related morbidities and adverse events (such as hemorrhages treated with a transfusion, missed ectopic pregnancies treated with surgery, and abortion-related infections that resulted in an overnight hospital admission) and abortion-related infections. RESULTS Among 49 287 women (mean age, 28 years [SD, 7.3]) who had 50 311 induced abortions, (23 891 [47%] first-trimester aspiration, 13 480 [27%] first-trimester medication, and 12 940 [26%] second trimester or later), 5660 abortions (11%) were performed in ASCs and 44 651 (89%) in office-based settings. Overall, 3.33% had an abortion-related morbidity or adverse event; 0.32% had a major abortion-related morbidity or adverse event; and 0.74% had an abortion-related infection. In adjusted analyses, there was no statistically significant difference between ASCs vs office-based settings, respectively, in the rates of abortion-related morbidities or adverse events (3.25% vs 3.

ObjectivesDespite global efforts to increase facility-based delivery (FBD), 90% of women in rural Ethiopia deliver at home without a skilled birth attendant. Men have an important role in increasing FBD due to their decision-making power, but this is largely unexplored. This study aimed to determine the FBD care attributes preferred by women and men, and whether poverty or household decision-making are associated with choice to deliver in a facility.Setting and participantsWe conducted a cross-sectional discrete choice experiment in 109 randomly selected households in rural Ethiopia in September–October 2015. We interviewed women who were pregnant or who had a child <2 years old and their male partners.ResultsBoth women and men preferred health facilities where medications and supplies were available (OR=3.08; 95% CI 2.03 to 4.67 and OR=2.68; 95% CI 1.79 to 4.02, respectively), a support person was allowed in the delivery room (OR=1.69; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.07 and OR=1.74; 95% CI 1.42 to 2.14, respectively) and delivery cost was low (OR=1.15 95% CI 1.12 to 1.18 and OR=1.14; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.17, respectively). Women valued free ambulance service (OR=1.37; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.70), while men favoured nearby facilities (OR=1.09; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.13) with friendly providers (OR=1.30; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.64). Provider preferences were complex. Neither women nor men preferred female doctors to health extension workers (HEW) (OR=0.92; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.42 and OR=0.74; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.14, respectively), male doctors to HEW (OR=1.33; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.99 and OR=0.75; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.12, respectively) or female over male nurses (OR=0.68; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.71 and OR=1.03; 95% CI 0.77 to 2.94, respectively). While both women and men preferred male nurses to HEW (OR=1.86; 95% CI 1.23 to 2.80 and OR=1.95; 95% CI 1.30 to 2.95, respectively), men (OR=1.89; 95% CI 1.29 to 2.78), but not women (OR=1.47; 95% CI 1.00 to 2.13) preferred HEW to female nurses. Both women and men preferred female doctors to male nurses (OR=1.71; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.29 and OR=1.44; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.92, respectively), male doctors to female nurses (OR=1.95; 95% CI 1.44 to 2.62 and OR=1.41; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.90, respectively) and male doctors to male nurses (OR=2.47; 95% CI 1.84 to 3.32 and OR=1.46; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.95, respectively), while only women preferred male doctors to female doctors (OR=1.45; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.93 and OR=1.01; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35, respectively) and only men preferred female nurses to female doctors (OR=1.34; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.84 and OR=1.39; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.89, respectively). Men were disproportionately involved in making household decisions (X2 (1, n=216)=72.18, p<0.001), including decisions to seek healthcare (X2 (1, n=216)=55.39, p<0.001), yet men were often unaware of their partners’ prenatal care attendance (X2 (1, n=215)=82.59, p<0.001).ConclusionWomen’s and men’s preferences may influence delivery service choices. Considering these choices is one way the Ethiopian government and health facilities may encourage FBD in rural areas.

No abstract

Is there an association between the type of facility in which an abortion is performed and abortion-related morbidities and adverse events? Findings: In this retrospective cohort study of 50311 induced abortions among 49287 women with private health insurance, performance of the abortion in an ambulatory surgery center, compared with an office-based setting, was not associated with a significant difference in abortion-related morbidities and adverse events (adjusted odds ratio, 0.97). Meaning: Rates of abortion-related morbidities and adverse events did not significantly differ by whether the abortion was performed in an ambulatory surgery center vs. an office-based setting.

Objective: To examine whether miscarriage treatment-related morbidities and adverse events vary across facility types. Methods: A retrospective cohort study compared miscarriage treatmentrelated morbidities and adverse events across hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), and office-based settings. Data on women who had miscarriage treatment between 2011-2014 and were continuously enrolled in their insurance plan for at least one year prior to and at least six weeks after treatment were obtained from a large national private insurance claims database. The main outcome was miscarriage treatment-related morbidities and adverse events occurring within six-weeks of miscarriage treatment. Secondary outcomes were major events and infections. Results: 97,374 miscarriage treatments met inclusion criteria. Most (75%) were provided in hospitals, 10% ASCs, and 15% office-based settings. 9.3% had miscarriage treatment-related events, 1.0% major events, and 1.5% infections. In adjusted analyses, there were fewer events in ASCs (6.5%) than office-based settings (9.4%) and hospitals (9.6%), but no significant difference between office-based settings and hospitals. There were no significant differences in major events between ASCs (0.7%) and office-based settings (0.8%), but more in hospitals (1.1%) than ASCs and office-based settings. There were fewer infections in ASCs (0.9%) than office-based settings (1.2%) and more in hospitals (1.6%) than ASCs and office-based settings. In analyses stratified by miscarriage treatment type, the difference 45 46 3 between ASCs and office-based settings was no longer significant for miscarriages treated with procedures. Conclusions: While there appear to be slightly more events in hospitals than ASCs or office-based settings, findings do not support limiting miscarriage treatment to particular settings.