Randomised preference trial of medical versus surgical termination of pregnancy less than 14 weeks' gestation (TOPS)

Health Technology Assessment

Volumn 13, Issue 53, 2009, Pages 1-124

  Robson, S C ^a   Kelly, T ^a   Howel, D ^a,b   Deverill, M ^a   Hewison, J ^c   Lie, M L S ^a   Stamp, E ^a   Armstrong, N ^a   May, C R ^a  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MIFEPRISTONE; MISOPROSTOL;

ABORTION; ADULT; ANXIETY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTRACEPTION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DEPRESSION; DIARRHEA; DISTRESS SYNDROME; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GENERAL ANESTHESIA; GESTATIONAL AGE; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE COST; HOSPITAL ADMISSION; HOSPITAL PATIENT; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; POSTOPERATIVE NAUSEA; PREGNANCY TERMINATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; SELF EVALUATION; SEXUAL HEALTH; SURGICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY; THERAPY EFFECT; UNITED KINGDOM; VACUUM ASPIRATION;

ABORTION, INDUCED; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MIFEPRISTONE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY TRIMESTER, FIRST; QUESTIONNAIRES; RANDOM ALLOCATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 74849105011     PISSN: 13665278     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3310/hta13530     Document Type: Article

References (126)

1. WHO Scientific Group. Medical methods for termination of pregnancy. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1997.
2. Department of Health. Statistical Bulletin 2008/01. Abortion statistics, England and Wales 2007. URL: www.dh.gov.uk/en/ Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH-085508.
3. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. National audit of induced abortion 2000. London: RCOG Press; 2001.
4. Department of Health. Statistical Bulletin 2007/01. Abortion statistics, England and Wales 2006. www.dh.gov.uk/en/ Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH-075697.
5. Department of Health. Bulletin 2003/23. Abortion statistics, England and Wales 2002. www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/ PublicationsStatistics/DH-4069635.
6. Lawson HW, Frye A, Atrash HK, Smith JC, Shulman HB, Ramick M. Abortion mortality, United States, 1972 through 1987. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;171:1365-72.
7. Child TJ, Thomas J, Rees M, MacKenzie IZ. Morbidity of first trimester aspiration termination and the seniority of the surgeon. Hum Reprod 2001;16:875-8.
8. Heisterberg L, Kringelbach M. Early complications after induced first trimester abortion. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1987;62:201-4.
9. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The care of women requesting induced abortion. Evidence-based Clinical Guideline Number 7. London: RCOG Press; 2004.
10. Song J. Use of misoprostol in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2000;55:503-10.
11. Ashok PW, Penny GC, Flett G, et al. An effective regime for early medical abortion. A report of 2000 consecutive cases. Hum Reprod 1998;13:2962-5.
12. Ashok PW, Templeton A, Wagaarachchi PT, Flett GMM. Factors affecting the outcome of early medical abortion: a review of 4132 consecutive cases. BJOG 2002;109:1281-9.
13. Rorbye C, Norgaard M, Nilas L. Medical versus surgical abortion efficacy, complications and leave of absence compared in a partly randomized study. Contraception 2004;70:393-9.
14. Scheepers HCJ, van Erp EJM, van den Bergh AS. Use of misoprostol in first and second trimester abortion: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1999;54:592-600.
15. Hamoda H, Ashok PW, Flett GMM, Templeton A. Medical abortion at 64 to 91 days of gestation: a review of 483 consecutive cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:1315-19.
16. Say L, Kulier R, Campana A, Gülmezoglu AM. Medical versus surgical methods for first trimester termination of pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;Issue 4. Art No.: CD003037. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003037.pub2.
17. Henshaw RC, Naji AA, Russell IT, Templeton AA. Comparison of medical abortion with surgical vacuum aspiration: women's preferences and acceptability of treatment. BMJ 1993;307:714-17.
18. Ashok PW, Kidd A, Flett GMM et al. A randomized comparison of medical abortion and surgical vacuum aspiration at 10-13 weeks gestation. Hum Reprod 2002;17:92-8.
19. Rorbye C, Norgaard M, Nilas L. Medical versus surgical abortion: comparing satisfaction and potential confounders in a partly randomized study. Hum Reprod 2005;20:834-8.
20. Creinin MD. Randomized comparison of efficacy, acceptability and cost of medical versus surgical abortion. Contraception 2000;62:117-24.
21. Winikoff B. Acceptability of medical abortion in early pregnancy. Fam Plann Perspect 1995;27:142-8, 85.
22. Slade P, Heke S, Fletcher J, Stewart P. Termination of pregnancy: patients' perceptions of care. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2001;27:72-6.
23. Bowling A. Research methods in health: investigating health and social services. Buckingham: Open University Press; 1997.
24. Jensen JT, Harvey SM, Beckman LJ. Acceptability of suction curettage and mifepristone abortion in the United States: a prospective comparison study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:1292-7.
25. Bonevski B, Adams J. Psychological effects of termination of pregnancy. A summary of the literature 1970-2000. Newcastle upon Tyne: Newcastle Institute of Public Health; 2001.
26. Henshaw R, Naji S, Russell I, Templeton A. Psychological responses following medical abortion (using mifepristone and gemeprost) and surgical vacuum aspiration. A patient-centred, partially randomized prospective study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1994;73:812-18.
27. Howie FL, Henshaw RC, Naji SA, Russell IT, Templeton AA. Medical abortion or vacuum aspiration? Two year follow up of a patient preference trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;104:829-33.
28. Kumar U, Baraitser P, Morton S, Massil H. Decision making and referral prior to abortion: a qualitative study of women's experiences. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2004;30:51-4.
29. Kumar U, Baraitser P, Morton S, Massil H. Periabortion contraception: a qualitative study of users' experiences. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2004;30:55-6.
30. Durkin A. Nursing and abortion. Am J Nurs 2002;102:13.
31. Harvey SM, Beckman LJ, Satre SJ. Choice of and satisfaction with methods of medical and surgical abortion among US clinic patients. Fam Plann Perspect 2001;33:212-16.
32. Ford S, Schofield T, Hope T. Barriers to the evidence-based patient choice (EBPC) consultation. Patient Educ Counsel 2002;47:179-85.
33. May C, Mort M, Williams T, Mair FS, Gask L. Health Technology Assessment in its local contexts: studies of telehealthcare. Soc Sci Med 2003;57:697-710.
34. May C. The preparation and analysis of qualitative data. In Roe B, Webb C, editors. Research and development in clinical nursing practice. London: Whurr; 1998. pp. 59-84.
35. May C, Foxcroft DR. Minimizing bias in self-reports of health beliefs and health behaviours. Health Educ Res 1995;10:107-12.
36. Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and another. House of Lords 1986.
37. Klose T. The contingent valuation method of health care. Health Policy 1999;47:97-123.
38. Gibb S, Donaldson C, Henshaw R. Assessing strength of preference for abortion method using 'willingness to pay': a useful research technique for measuring values. J Adv Nurs 1998;27:30-6.
39. Donaldson C, Thomas R, Totgerson DJ. Validity of open-ended and payment scale approaches to eliciting willingness to pay. Appl Econ 1997;29:79-84.
40. Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W. Impact of Event Scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med 1979;41:209-18.
41. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983;67:361-70.
42. Crow R, Gage H, Hampson S. The measurement of satisfaction with health care: implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature. Health Technol Assess 2002;6:(32).
43. Ware JE, Hays RD. Methods for measuring patient satisfaction with specific medical encounters. Med Care 1988;26:393-402.
44. Sihvo S, Hemminki E, Kosunen E, Koponen P. Quality of care in abortion services in Finland. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1998;77:210-17.
45. Rosen A, Nystedt L, Bygdeman M, Lundstrom V. Acceptability of a non-surgical method to terminate very early pregnancy in comparison to vacuum aspiration. Contraception 1979;19:107-17.
46. Winikoff B, Ellertson C, Elul B, Sivin I. Acceptability and feasibility of early pregnancy termination by mifepristone: misoprostol. Arch Fam Med 1998;7:360-6.
47. WHO. The prevention and management of postpartum haemorrhage. Report of a Technical Working Group, Geneva, 3-6 July 1989. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1990.
48. Paul M, Lichtenberg ES, Borgatta L, Grimes DA, Stubblefield PG. A clinician's guide to medical and surgical abortion. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1999.
49. Bedi N, Chilvers C, Churchill R, Dewey M, Duggan C, Fielding K, et al. Assessing effectiveness of treatment of depression in primary care: partially randomised preference trial. Br J Psychiatry 2000;177:312-18.
50. Stata Corporation. Intercooled Stata 8.0 for Windows 98/95NT. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation; 2003.
51. Drummond M, Brien B, Stoddart G, Torrance G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.
52. Curtis L. Unit costs of health and social care. Cantebury: Personal Social Services Research Unit; 2007.
53. Polsky D, Glick HA, Wilke R, Schulman K. Confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: a comparison of four methods. Heath Econ 1997;6:243-52.
54. Ryan M, Bate A, Eastmond CJ, Ludbrook A. Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Qual Health Care 2001;10(Suppl. 1):55-60.
55. San Miguel F, Ryan M, Mcintosh E. Applying conjoint analysis in economic evaluations: an application to menorrhagia. Appl Econ 2000;32:823-33.
56. Hahn GJ, Shapiro SS. A Catalogue for the design and analysis of orthogonal symmetric and asymmetric fractional factorial experiments. Scemelady, NY: Canadian Electricity Research and Development Centre; 1966.
57. Lancaster K. A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 1966;74:134-57.
58. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In Zarembka P, editor. Frontiers in econometrics. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1973. pp. 105-42.
59. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
60. Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2000.
61. Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ 2005;14:1079-83.
62. Strauss A. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987.
63. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage; 1998.
64. Oakley A. The captured womb: a history of the medical care of pregnant women. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 1984.
65. Lie MLS, Robson SC, May CR. Experiences of abortion: a narrative review of qualitative studies. BMC Health Serv Res 2008;8:150.
66. Heaven B, Murtagh M, Rapley T, May C, Graham R, Kaner E, et al. Patients or research subjects? A qualitative study of participation in a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention. Patient Educ Counsel 2006;62:260-70.
67. Simonds W, Ellertson C, Springer K, Winikoff B. Abortion revised: participants in the U.S. clinical trials evaluate mifepristone. Soc Sci Med 1998;46:49-66.
68. Elul B, Pearlman E, Sorhaindo A, Simonds W, Westhoff C. In-depth interviews with medical abortion clients: thoughts on the method and home administration of misoprostol. J Am Med Women's Assoc 2000;55(Suppl. 3):169-72.
69. Rosen AS, von Knorring K, Bygdeman M, Christensen J. Randomised comparison of prostaglandin treatment in hospital or at home with vacuum aspiration for termination of early pregnancy. Contraception 1984;29:423-35.
70. Legarth J, Peen UBS, Michelsen JW. Mifespristone or vacuum aspiration in termination of early pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Biol 1991;41:91-6.
71. Kulier R, Gülmezoglu AM, Hofmeyer GJ, Cheng L, Campana A. Medical methods for first trimester abortion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; Issue 1, Art No.: CD002855. DOI 10.1002/14651858. CD002855.pub3.
72. Preference Collaborative Review Group. Patients' preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis. BMJ 2008;337:a1864.
73. King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F, Bower P, Chandler M, Morou M, et al. Impact of participant and physician intervention preferences on randomized trials. A systematic review. JAMA 2005;293:1089-99.
74. McPherson K, Britton AR, Wennberg JE. Are randomised trials controlled? Patient preferences and unblinded trials. J R Soc Med 1997;90:652-6.
75. Brewin CR, Bradley C. Patient preferences and randomised clinical trials. BMJ 1989;299:313-15.
76. Silverman WA, Altman DG. Patients' preferences and randomised trials. Lancet 1996;347:171-4.
77. Torgerson DJ, Klaber-Moffett J, Russell IT. Patient preferences in randomised trials: threat or opportunity? Health Serv Res Policy 1996;1:194-7.
78. Sharp L, Cotton SC, Alexander L, Williams E, Gray M. Reasons for participation and non-participation in a randomised trial: postal questionnaire surveys of women eligible for TOMBOLA (Trial of Management of Borderline and Other Low-Grade Abnormal smears). Clin Trials 2006;3:431-42.
79. Ashok PW, Hamoda H, Flett GM, Kidd A, Templeton A, Fitzmaurice A. Patient preference in a randomized study comparing medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation. Contraception 2005;71:143-8.
80. Donaldson C, Shackley P. Willingness to pay for health care. In Scott A, Maynard A, Elliot R, editors. Advances in Health Economics. London: John Wiley; 2003.
81. Olsen JA, Donaldson C, Shackley P, EuroWill Group. Impact versus explicit ranking: on inferring ordinal preferences for health care programmes based on differences in willingness-to-pay. J Health Econ 2005;24:990-6.
82. Lloyd AJ. Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate? Health Econ 2003;12:393-402.
83. Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; 1989.
84. Finnie S, Foy R, Mather J. The pathway to induced abortion: women's experiences and general practitioner attitudes. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2006;32:15-18.
85. Hemmerling A, Siedentopf F, Kentenich H. Emotional impact and acceptability of medical abortion with mifepristone: a German experience. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol 2005;26:23-31.
86. Slade P, Heke S, Fletcher J, Stewart P. A comparison of medical and surgical termination of pregnancy: choice, emotional impact and satisfaction with care. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105:1288-95.
87. Schaff EA, Fielding SL, Westhoff C. Randomized trial of oral versus vaginal misoprostol 2 days after mifepristone 200mg for abortion up to 63 days of pregnancy. Contraception 2002;66:247-50.
88. Honkanen H, Piaggio G, von Hertzen H, Bartfai G, Erdenetungalag R, Gemzell-Danielsson K, et al. WHO multicentre study of three misoprostol regimens after mifepristone for early medical abortion. II: Side effects and women's perceptions. BJOG 2004;111:715-25.
89. Teal SB, Dempsey-Fanning A, Westhoff C. Predictors of acceptability of medication abortion. Contraception 2007;75:224-9.
90. Harwood B, Nansel T. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Management of Early Pregnancy Failure Trial. BJOG 2008;115:501-8.
91. Osgood CE, Suci GJ, Tannenbaum PH. The measurement of meaning. Illinois: University of Illinois Press; 1957.
92. Shields L. Using semantic differentials in fieldwork. J Eval Clin Pract 2007;13:116-19.
93. Ashok PW, Hamoda H, Flett GM, Kidd A, Ftizmaurice A, Templeton A. Psychological sequelae of medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2005;84:761-6.
94. Urquhart DR, Templeton AA. Psychiatric morbidity and acceptability following medical and surgical methods of induced abortion. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991;98:396-9.
95. Sit D, Rothschild AJ, Creinin MD, Hanusa BH, Wisner KL. Psychiatric outcomes following medical and surgical abortion. Hum Reprod 2007;22:878-84.
96. Schmiege S, Russo NF. Depression and unwanted first pregnancy: longitudinal cohort study. BMJ 2005;331:1303-8.
97. Charles VE, Polis CB, Sridhara SK, Blum RW. Abortion and long term mental health outcomes: a systematic review of the evidence. Contraception 2008;78:436-50.
98. Steinberg JR, Russo NF. Abortion and anxiety: what's the relationship? Soc Sci Med 2008;67:238-52.
99. Sundin MJ, Horowitz MJ. Impact of Event Scale: psychometric properties. Br J Psychiatry 2002;180:205-9.
100. Broen AN, Moum T, Bodtker AS, Ekeberg O. The course of mental health after miscarriage and induced abortion: a longitudinal, five-year follow-up study. BMC Medicine 2005;3:18.
101. Rue VM, Coleman PK, Rue JJ, Reardon DC. Induced abortion and traumatic stress: a preliminary comparison of American and Russian women. Med Sci Monit 2004;10:SR5-16.
102. Coyaji K, Krishna U, Ambardekar S, Bracken H, Raote V, Mandlekar A, et al. Are two doses of misoprostol after mifepristone for early abortion better than one? BJOG 2007;114:271-8.
103. Child TJ, Thomas J, Rees M, Mackenzie IZ. A Comparative study of surgical and medical procedures: 932 pregnancy terminations up to 63 days gestation. Hum Reprod 2001;16:67-71.
104. Hamoda H, Ashok PW, Flett GMM, Templeton A. Medical abortion at 9-13 weeks' gestation: a review of 1076 consecutive cases. Contraception 2005;71:327-32.
105. Hakim-Elahi E, Tovell HMM, Burnhill MS. Complications of first-trimester abortion: a report of 170,000 cases. Obstet Gynecol 1990;76:129- 35.
106. Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have costeffectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ 2003;13:437-52.
107. Department of Health. National tariff. Available from URL: www.dh.gov.uk/en/Managingyourorganisation/Financeandplanning/ NHSFinancialReforms/DH-081226 (accessed 16/01/2009).
108. Afable-Munsuz A, Gould H, Stewart F, Phillips KA, van Bebber SL, Moore C. Provider practice models for the costs of delivering medication abortion: evidence from 11 US abortion care settings. Contraception 2007;75:45-51.
109. Grimes DA, Creinin MD. Induced abortion: an overview for internists. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:620-6.
110. Cowett AA, Golub RM, Grobman WA. Costeffectiveness of dilatation and evacuation versus induction of labor for second-trimester pregnancy termination. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194:768-73.
111. Donovan JL, Brindle L, Mills N. Capturing users' experience of participating in cancer trials. Eur J Cancer Care 2002;11:210-14.
112. Featherstone K, Donovan JL. Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients' perspective of participation in a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 1998;317:1180.
113. Rapley T, May C, Heaven B, Murtagh M, Graham R, Kaner EFS, et al. Doctor-patient interaction in a randomised controlled trial of decision-support tools. Soc Sci Med 2006;62:2267-78.
114. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW, Benson P, Winslade W. False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Center Report 1987:20-4.
115. Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS, Grisso T, Renaud M. Therapeutic misconception and the appreciation of risks in clinical trials. Soc Sci Med 2004;58:1689-97.
116. Sankar P. Communication and miscommunication in informed consent to research. Med Anthropol Q 2004;18:429-46.
117. Fielding SL, Edmunds E, Schaff EA. Having an abortion using mifepristone and home misoprostol: a qualitative analysis of women's experiences. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2002;34:34-40.
118. Murtagh MJ, Thomson RG, May CR, Rapley T, Heaven BR, Graham RH, et al. Qualitative methods in a randomised controlled trial: the role of an integrated qualitative process evaluation in providing evidence to discontinue the intervention in one arm of a trial of a decision support tool. Qual Saf Health Care 2007;16:224-9.
119. Sharma S, Guthrie K. Nurse-led telephone consultation and outpatient local anaesthetic abortion: a pilot project. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2006;32:19-22.
120. Thomas J, Paranjothy S, Templeton A. An audit of the management of induced abortion in England and Wales. Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2003;83:327-34.
121. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. URL: www.ffprhc.org.uk/ (accessed 16/01/2009).
122. Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Termination of pregnancy services. Available from URL: www.newcastle-hospitals.org.uk/services/ gynaecology--termination-of-pregnancy.aspx (accessed 16/01/2009).
123. Wong SSM, Bekker HL, Thornton JG, Gbolade BA. Choices about abortion method: assessing the quality of patient information leaflets in England and Wales. BJOG 2003;110:263-6.
124. Wong SSM, Thornton JG, Gbolade B, Bekker HL. A randomised controlled trial of a decision-aid leaflet to facilitate women's choice between pregnancy termination methods. BJOG 2006;113:688-94.
125. Wen J, Cai QY, Deng F, Li YP. Manual versus electric vacuum aspiration for first trimester abortion: a systematic review. BJOG 2007;115:5-13.
126. Grimes DA, Smith MS, Witham AD. Mifepristone and misoprostol versus dilation and evacuation for midtrimester abortion: a pilot randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2004;111:148-53.