Objective To inform UK service development to support medical abortion at home, appropriate for person and context. Design Realist review Setting/participants Peer-reviewed literature from 1 January 2000 to 9 December 2021, describing interventions or models of home abortion care. Participants included people seeking or having had an abortion. Interventions Interventions and new models of abortion care relevant to the UK. Outcome measures Causal explanations, in the form of context-mechanism-outcome configurations, to test and develop our realist programme theory. Results We identified 12 401 abstracts, selecting 944 for full text assessment. Our final review included 50 papers. Medical abortion at home is safe, effective and acceptable to most, but clinical pathways and user experience are variable and a minority would not choose this method again. Having a choice of abortion location remains essential, as some people are unable to have a medical abortion at home. Choice of place of abortion (home or clinical setting) was influenced by service factors (appointment number, timing and wait-times), personal responsibilities (caring/work commitments), geography (travel time/distance), relationships (need for secrecy) and desire for awareness/involvement in the process. We found experiences could be improved by offering: an option for self-referral through a telemedicine consultation, realistic information on a range of experiences, opportunities to personalise the process, improved pain relief, and choice of when and how to discuss contraception. Conclusions Acknowledging the work done by patients when moving medical abortion care from clinic to home is important. Patients may benefit from support to: prepare a space, manage privacy and work/caring obligations, decide when/how to take medications, understand what is normal, assess experience and decide when and how to ask for help. The transition of this complex intervention when delivered outside healthcare environments could be supported by strategies that reduce surprise or anxiety, enabling preparation and a sense of control.

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, the British governments issued temporary approvals enabling the use of both medical abortion pills, mifepristone and misoprostol, at home. This permitted the introduction of a fully telemedical model of abortion care with consultations taking place via telephone or video call and medications delivered to women’s homes. The decision was taken by the governments in England and Wales to continue this model of care beyond the original end date of April 2022, while at time of writing the approval in Scotland remains under consultation. Methods We interviewed 30 women who had undergone an abortion in England, Scotland or Wales between August and December 2021. We explored their views on the changes in abortion service configuration during the pandemic and whether abortion via telemedicine and use of abortion medications at home should continue. Results Support for continuation of the permission to use mifepristone and misoprostol at home was overwhelmingly positive. Reasons cited included convenience, comfort, reduced stigma, privacy and respect for autonomy. A telemedical model was also highly regarded for similar reasons, but for some its necessity was linked to safety measures during the pandemic, and an option to have an in-person interaction with a health professional at some point in the care pathway was endorsed. Conclusions The approval to use abortion pills at home via telemedicine is supported by women having abortions in Britain. The voices of patients are essential to shaping acceptable and appropriate abortion service provision.

Background: Models of abortion care have changed significantly in the last decade, most markedly during the COVID-19 pandemic, when home management of early medical abortion with telemedical support was approved in Britain. Objective: Our study aimed to examine women’s satisfaction with abortion care and their suggestions for improvements. Design: Qualitative, in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Methods: A purposive sample of 48 women with recent experience of abortion was recruited between July 2021 and August 2022 from independent sector and National Health Service abortion services in Scotland, Wales and England. Interviews were conducted by phone or via video call. Women were asked about their abortion experience and for suggestions for any improvements that could be made along their patient journey – from help-seeking, the initial consultation, referral, treatment, to aftercare. Data were analyzed using the Framework Method. Results: Participants were aged 16–43 years; 39 had had a medical abortion, 8 a surgical abortion, and 1 both. The majority were satisfied with their clinical care. The supportive, kind and non-judgmental attitudes of abortion providers were highly valued, as was the convenience afforded by remotely supported home management of medical abortion. Suggestions for improvement across the patient journey centred around the need for timely care; greater correspondence between expectations and reality; the importance of choice; and the need for greater personal and emotional support. Conclusion: Recent changes in models of care present both opportunities and challenges for quality of care. The perspectives of patients highlight further opportunities for improving care and support. The principles of timely care, choice, management of expectations, and emotional support should inform further service configuration.

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) is the main cause of cervical cancer and genital warts and constitutes one of the most common sexually transmitted infections. Cervical cancer is the only reproductive cancer that has a primary prevention programme through the introduction of HPV vaccinations. Even though the majority of European countries have nationally funded HPV vaccination programmes, in Poland these are exclusively local and scarcely funded. Moreover, the majority of local programmes are directed to females only. Meanwhile, Poland has one of the highest cervical cancer incidence rates among high income countries. The aim of this study was to measure HPV vaccination levels among final-year students in Poland and to establish the association between vaccination status and gender, region and level of sexual education received. This study is a part of the POLKA 18 Study, which used original self-reported paper-based questionnaires distributed in schools in six Polish regions. The study was conducted between April and December 2019. The obtained data were analysed in STATA 17. In total, 2701 fully completed questionnaires were collected. Over half of the respondents (58.2%) did not know their HPV vaccination status. Only 16.0% of the respondents replied that they have been vaccinated against HPV (18.2% of females and 14.5% of males). There was no direct association between vaccination status and access to ‘family life education’ classes. The vaccination level significantly differed among the different regions of Poland (p < 0.0001), with the Śląskie and Wielkopolskie regions achieving the highest rates. At least a quarter of adolescents after their sexual debut have not been vaccinated against HPV. Regions with immunization programmes introduced to their provincial capitals had higher vaccination rates. Our findings indicate the need for the introduction of state-funded vaccination programmes at the national level for the vaccination rate to increase, which will have the potential to decrease cervical cancer incidence in the country.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is limited within abortion-related research. Possible reasons for this include concerns about engaging with a stigmatised patient group who value confidentiality and may be reluctant to re-engage with services. Structural barriers, including limited funding for abortion-related research, also prevent researchers from creating meaningful PPI opportunities. Here, we describe lessons learnt on undertaking PPI as part of the Shaping Abortion for Change (SACHA) Study, which sought to create an evidence base to guide new directions in abortion care in Britain. Two approaches to PPI were used: involving patients and the public in the oversight of the research and its dissemination as lay advisors, and group meetings to obtain patients’ views on interpretation of findings and recommendations. All participants observed the SACHA findings aligned with their own experiences of having an abortion in Britain. These priorities aligned closely with those identified in a separate expert stakeholder consultation undertaken as part of the SACHA Study. One additional priority which had not been identified during the research was identified by the PPI participants. We found abortion patients to be highly motivated to engage in the group meetings, and participation in them actively contributed to the destigmatisation of abortion by giving them a space to share their experiences. This may alleviate any ethical concerns about conducting research and PPI on abortion, including the assumption that revisiting an abortion experience will cause distress. We hope that our reflections are useful to others considering PPI in abortion-related research and service improvement.

Introduction: Use of telemedicine in abortion care is safe and effective. Patient satisfaction with telemedically supported abortion is high, but as use expands in Britain, little is known about patients’ or health professionals’ views on how it is best used. We sought the views of both groups on telemedicine's role in abortion provision and how its use might be optimised. Methods: We administered a structured survey with an additional free-text response option to a range of health professionals from services identified via clustered random sampling. We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients with recent experience of abortion, purposively sampled from abortion services. Participants were recruited from England, Scotland and Wales. We analysed qualitative data using thematic analysis alongside framework analysis. Results: Support for telemedicine was high among participants, which included 771 health professionals from a range of services and 48 patients. Among health professionals, 23% opposed the use of telemedicine in abortion provision. Opposition was highest among those uninvolved, or who did not feel skilled, in remote provision. Reported benefits included patient convenience and comfort. Patient concerns centred on adequate provision of emotional support. Participants made suggestions for augmenting and extending the use of telemedicine to meet some patients’ needs, including combining telemedical consultation with in-person care and providing information and follow-up via digital methods. Conclusions: Acceptability of telemedically supported abortion, which offers logistical and emotional benefits to patients, is high in Britain. Novel ways of providing telemedical support should be explored to enhance remote abortion provision. In-person care should remain an option for patients.