Preferences for the delivery of early abortion services in Australia: a discrete choice experiment
Jody Church
A * , Marion Haas A , Deborah J. Street A , Deborah Bateson B and Danielle Mazza C
A
B
C
Abstract
Abortion is a common procedure in Australia; it is estimated that the rate is between 15 and 17 per 1000 women. Surgical and medical abortion options are available; however, the use of medical abortion is not as common as in other similar countries. The aim of this study is to understand preferences for the provision of early abortion services in Australia.
We conducted a survey of 821 members of an online panel representative of the Australian adult general population. The survey consisted of a discrete choice experiment including 16 choice tasks and a number of follow-up questions. A mixed logit model was used to analyse the responses to the discrete choice experiment.
Respondents preferred services that provided surgical abortion compared with early medical abortion (EMA). They preferred consultations with a specialist gynaecologist compared with a general practitioner (GP); consultations with a GP were preferred to those with a nurse practitioner. Face-to-face consultations were preferred to telehealth. For EMA, respondents preferred to collect medication from the doctor’s surgery rather than from a pharmacy or to receive it by post. Overall, respondents preferred lower-cost services. There were no differences in preferences between respondents with or without experience of abortion or between genders.
Respondents prefer abortion services with low out-of-pocket costs. Their reluctance to use a nurse-led service may reflect the general public’s lack of understanding of and familiarity with the training and expertise of nurse practitioners. Similarly, the safety and benefits of EMA relative to surgery, including EMA delivered by telehealth, need to be emphasised.
Keywords: abortion services, Australia, discrete choice experiment, early medical abortion, nurse-led care, preferences, primary care, telehealth.
References
1 Taft AJ, Shankar M, Black KI, Mazza D, Hussainy S, Lucke JC. Unintended and unwanted pregnancy in Australia: a cross-sectional, national random telephone survey of prevalence and outcomes. Med J Aust 2018; 209(9): 407-8.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
2 Keogh LA, Gurrin LC, Moore P. Estimating the abortion rate in Australia from national hospital morbidity and pharmaceutical benefits scheme data. Med J Aust 2021; 215(8): 375-6.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
3 Wright SM, Bateson D, McGeechan K. Induced abortion in Australia: 2000–2020. Ashfield, Australia: Family Planning NSW; 2021. Available at https://www.fpnsw.org.au/sites/default/files/assets/Induced-Abortion-in-Australia_2000-2020.pdf [cited 15 August 2024]
4 WHO. Abortion care guideline. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022. Available at https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240039483 [cited 30 September 2024]
5 Popinchalk A, Sedgh G. Trends in the method and gestational age of abortion in high-income countries. BMJ Sex Reprod Health 2019; 45(2): 95-103.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
6 SPHERE Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Coalition. Fact Sheets. Melbourne, Australia: SPHERE CRE; 2023. Available at https://www.spherecre.org/resources/fact-sheets [cited 15 October 2024]
7 Mazza D, Burton G, Wilson S, Boulton E, Fairweather J, Black KI. Medical abortion. Aust J Gen Pract 2020; 49(6): 324-30.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
8 Mazza D. Increasing access to women’s sexual and reproductive health services: telehealth is only the start. Med J Aust 2021; 215(8): 352-3.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
9 RANZCOG. Clinical Guideline for Abortion Care: An evidence-based guideline on abortion care in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Melbourne, Australia: Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 2023. Available at https://ranzcog.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/Clinical-Guideline-Abortion-Care.pdf [cited 15 August 2024]
10 Haas M, Church J, Street DJ, Bateson D, Mazza D. How can we encourage the provision of early medical abortion in primary care? Results of a best–worst scaling survey. Aust J Prim Health 2023; 29(3): 252-9.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
11 Endler M, Lavelanet A, Cleeve A, Ganatra B, Gomperts R, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Telemedicine for medical abortion: a systematic review. BJOG 2019; 126(9): 1094-102.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
12 Baraitser P, Free C, Norman WV, Lewandowska M, Meiksin R, Palmer MJ, et al. Improving experience of medical abortion at home in a changing therapeutic, technological and regulatory landscape: a realist review. BMJ Open 2022; 12(11): e066650.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
14 Louviere JJ, Flynn TN. Using best-worst scaling choice experiments to measure public perceptions and preferences for healthcare reform in australia. Patient 2010; 3(4): 275-83.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
15 MSI Australia. Safe abortion services in Australia. Melbourne, Australia: MSI Australia; 2024. Available at https://www.msiaustralia.org.au/abortion-services/ [cited 2024 Aug 15]
16 Street DJ, Burgess L. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: theory and methods. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons; 2007. 10.1002/9780470148563
17 de Bekker-Grob EW, Donkers B, Jonker MF, Stolk EA. Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guide. Patient 2015; 8(5): 373-84.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
18 Burgess L, Street DJ, Wasi N. Comparing designs for choice experiments: a case study. J Stat Theory Pract 2011; 5(1): 25-46.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
19 R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; 2023. Available at https://www.R-project.org/
20 Train K. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press; 2009. Available at https://eml.berkeley.edu/books/choice2.html
21 Helveston JP. logitr: fast estimation of multinomial and mixed logit models with preference space and willingness-to-pay space utility parameterizations. J Stat Soft 2023; 105(10): 1-37 Available at https://www.jstatsoft.org/index.php/jss/article/view/v105i10 [cited 15 August 2024].
| Google Scholar |
22 Thompson TA, Seymour JW, Melville C, Khan Z, Mazza D, Grossman D. An observational study of patient experiences with a direct-to-patient telehealth abortion model in Australia. BMJ Sex Reprod Health 2022; 48(2): 103-9.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
23 Therapeutic Goods Administration. Amendments to restrictions on prescribing MS-2 Step (mifepristone and misoprostol). Canberra, Australia: Australian Government, Department of Health and Aged Care; 2023. Available at https://www.tga.gov.au/news/media-releases/amendments-restrictions-prescribing-ms-2-step-mifepristone-and-misoprostol [cited 15 August 2024]
24 The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Recommendations made out-of-session by the PBAC between meetings (March 2023 and July 2023). Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia; 2024. Available at https://www.pbs.gov.au/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/pbac-outcomes/out-of-session/items-recommended-between-meetings-OOS-Mar23-Jul23-v2.pdf [cited 15 August 2024]
25 Melville C, Goldstone P, Moosa N. Telephone follow-up after early medical abortion using Australia’s first low sensitivity urine pregnancy test. Aust NZJ Obstet Gynaecol 2023; 63: 797-802.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
26 Mazza D, Seymour JW, Sandhu MV, Melville C, Brien JOR, Thompson TA. General practitioner knowledge of and engagement with telehealth-at-home medical abortion provision. Aust J Prim Health 2021; 27(6): 456-61.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
