Women's Health Issues
Volume 16, Issue 1 , Pages 14-21, January 2006

Determinants of physician unwillingness to offer medical abortion using mifepristone

  • Michelle D. Seelig, MD, MSHS

      Affiliations

    • David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Department of Family Medicine, Los Angeles, California
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence to: Michelle D. Seelig, MD, MSHS, National Research Service Award Fellow, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Department of Family Medicine, 10880 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1800, Los Angeles, California 90024-4142
  • ,
  • Lillian Gelberg, MD, MSPH

      Affiliations

    • David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Department of Family Medicine, Los Angeles, California
  • ,
  • Paula Tavrow, PhD

      Affiliations

    • UCLA School of Public Health, Community Health Sciences Department, Los Angeles, California, USA
  • ,
  • Martin Lee, PhD

      Affiliations

    • UCLA School of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, Los Angeles, California, USA
    • VA Greater Los Angeles HSR&D Center of Excellence, Center for the Study of Healthcare Provider Behavior, Sepulveda, California, USA
  • ,
  • Lisa V. Rubenstein, MD, MSPH

      Affiliations

    • VA Greater Los Angeles HSR&D Center of Excellence, Center for the Study of Healthcare Provider Behavior, Sepulveda, California, USA
    • David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Department of Internal Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA

Received 22 October 2004; received in revised form 4 May 2005; accepted 3 October 2005.

Purpose

We sought to identify factors associated with contemplating versus not contemplating offering medical abortion with mifepristone among physicians not opposed to it.

Methods

We analyzed data from a Kaiser Family Foundation survey of a nationally representative sample of 790 American obstetrician/gynecologists and primary care physicians. Our study sample consisted of 419 physicians who were not personally opposed to medical abortion and could be classified as not actively considering (precontemplation) or actively considering (contemplation) offering mifepristone. We conducted multivariate logistic regression to predict being unlikely to offer mifepristone (i.e., in the precontemplation stage of change).

Principal findings

In 2001, 1 year after U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, 5% of physicians surveyed were offering mifepristone. Among the 750 physicians not offering mifepristone, 57% were not opposed. Of those not opposed, 74% reported that they were unlikely to offer mifepristone in the next year (precontemplation) as compared to 23% who might offer it (contemplation). Independent predictors of being in the precontemplation stage were being a primary care versus OB/GYN physician (odds ratio [OR] 3.29, p = .02), being in private versus hospital-based practice (OR 2.40, p = .03), and lacking concerns about FDA regulations (OR 2.06, p = .01) or violence and protests (OR 1.93, p = .03) as barriers to offering mifepristone.

Conclusions

For precontemplation-stage physicians, the most efficient strategy for increasing the availability of medical abortion may be to design programs that emphasize clinical benefits and feasibility to stimulate interest in the procedure. For contemplation-stage physicians, the optimum approach may be one that helps to overcome barriers associated with FDA regulations and concerns about violence and protests.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supported by a National Research Service Award and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) Service (Project #HFP 94-028) in collaboration with the Office of Academic Affiliations, VA Women’s Health Fellowship Program. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the University of California Departments of Medicine, Family Medicine or Public Health or the Department of Veterans Affairs.

PII: S1049-3867(05)00109-X

doi:10.1016/j.whi.2005.12.001

Women's Health Issues
Volume 16, Issue 1 , Pages 14-21, January 2006