Barriers and enablers to nurse practitioner implementation of medication abortion in Canada: A qualitative study

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 18; no. 1; p. e0280757
• Main Authors: Carson, Andrea, Stirling-Cameron, Emma, Paynter, Martha, Munro, Sarah, Norman, Wendy V, Kilpatrick, Kelley, Begun, Stephanie, Martin-Misener, Ruth
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 26.01.2023; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Abortion; Abortion, Induced - education; Abortion, Spontaneous; Abortion, Therapeutic; Analysis; Beliefs, opinions and attitudes; Canada; Complications; Data collection; Decriminalization; Delivery of Health Care; Drugs; Education; Emergency medical services; Female; Health care; Health care access; Health care disparities; Humans; Interviews; Medicine and Health Sciences; Methods; Nurse practitioners; Nurse Practitioners - education; Nurses; Nursing; Nursing education; Patients; People and Places; Physicians; Polls & surveys; Practice; Pregnancy; Primary care; Qualitative research; Reproductive health; Research and Analysis Methods; Rural areas; Scope of practice; Social aspects; Social Sciences; Training; Ultrasound; Canada; Quebec
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280757

In this study we explored nurse practitioner-provided medication abortion in Canada and identified barriers and enablers to uptake and implementation. Between 2020-2021, we conducted 43 semi-structured interviews with 20 healthcare stakeholders and 23 nurse practitioners who both provided and did not provide medication abortion. Data were analyzed using interpretive description. We identified five overarching themes: 1) Access and use of ultrasound for gestational dating; 2) Advertising and anonymity of services; 3) Abortion as specialized or primary care; 4) Location and proximity to services; and 5) Education, mentorship, and peer support. Under certain conditions, ultrasound is not required for medication abortion, supporting nurse practitioner provision in the absence of access to this technology. Nurse practitioners felt a conflict between wanting to advertise their abortion services while also protecting their anonymity and that of their patients. Some nurse practitioners perceived medication abortion to be a low-resource, easy-to-provide service, while some not providing medication abortion continued to refer patients to specialized clinics. Some participants in rural areas felt unable to provide this service because they were too far from emergency services in the event of complications. Most nurse practitioners did not have any training in abortion care during their education and desired the support of a mentor experienced in abortion provision. Addressing factors that influence nurse practitioner provision of medication abortion will help to broaden access. Nurse practitioners are well-suited to provide medication abortion care but face multiple ongoing barriers to provision. We recommend the integration of medication abortion training into nurse practitioner education. Further, widespread communication from nursing organizations could inform nurse practitioners that medication abortion is within their scope of practice and facilitate public outreach campaigns to inform the public that this service exists and can be provided by nurse practitioners.