6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Innovationen in der Versorgung von Schwangerschaftsabbrüchen während der COVID-19-Pandemie in Deutschland, Frankreich und Großbritannien : Aufrechterhaltung des Zugangs und Aufbau von Resilienz Translated title: Innovation in abortion care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, France and Great Britain : Paths to maintaining access and building system resilience

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Die COVID-19-Pandemie hatte drastische Auswirkungen auf die Gesundheitssysteme vieler Länder. Zur Aufrechterhaltung der Versorgung mussten umgehend Lösungen gefunden werden, wobei sich auch das Potenzial ergab, Innovationen zu beschleunigen. So wurde beispielsweise der Zugang zu Schwangerschaftsabbrüchen während der Pandemie durch „Telehealth für frühen medikamentösen Schwangerschaftsabbruch“ (TEMA) verstärkt genutzt.

          In diesem narrativen Übersichtsartikel werden Deutschland, Frankreich und Großbritannien in Hinblick auf die Entwicklung der Anzahl, Methoden und Settings von Schwangerschaftsabbrüchen in den Jahren 2018–2023 verglichen. Veränderungen im Versorgungsangebot und in der Gesetzgebung während der Pandemie werden dargestellt und die Unterschiede zwischen den Ländern sowie die verschiedenen Innovationsfaktoren diskutiert. Dazu wurden nationale Statistiken analysiert und es fand eine Literatur- und Onlinerecherche (Rapid-Review) statt.

          In den 3 Ländern zeigen sich unterschiedliche Abbruchraten und Anteile medikamentöser Abbrüche sowie Auswirkungen der Pandemie; ein Anstieg von Telehealth ist aus einigen Quellen ersichtlich. In Frankreich und Großbritannien, wo medikamentöser Schwangerschaftsabbruch die Hauptmethode des Abbruchs ist, waren Dienstleistungen im Zusammenhang mit Schwangerschaftsabbrüchen schon vor der Pandemie leichter zugänglich. Während der Pandemie wurde hier TEMA, inkl. Versenden von Medikamenten, offiziell eingeführt. In Deutschland wurde TEMA erstmals durch Nichtregierungsorganisationen angeboten. Nachhaltigkeit und Verbreitung der Neuerungen bleiben fragil, insbesondere in Deutschland, wo der disruptive Ansatz einiger Organisationen noch keinen Eingang in die allgemeinen Gesundheitsdienste gefunden hat.

          Translated abstract

          The COVID-19 pandemic has had a drastic impact on healthcare systems. They had to react, adapt and innovate in order to build resilience, that is maintain healthcare access and health equity. For example, access to abortion services during the pandemic was increasingly facilitated through “Telehealth for Early Medical Abortion” (TEMA).

          This narrative review article compares Germany, France and Great Britain in terms of abortion numbers, methods and settings from 2018 to 2023. Changes in the availability of services and legislation during the pandemic are presented, and the differences between the countries, as well as various innovation factors, are discussed. We used national statistics and conducted a literature and online search (Rapid Review).

          In the three countries, there are differences in abortion rates, the share of medical abortions and the impact of the pandemic. In France and Great Britain, where medical abortion is the main method of abortion and where abortion care was more accessible before the pandemic than in Germany, a series of innovations were officially introduced to facilitate access during the pandemic. They included teleconsultations and the mailing of abortion medication. Most changes have been sustained since then, contributing to addressing historic and systemic health inequities in terms of access. In Germany, innovations during the pandemic have been crafted mainly by civil society organisations, offering for the first time teleabortion services.

          The COVID-19 pandemic provoked or accelerated innovation in terms of abortion care in France, Germany and Great Britain. The sustainability and scaling-up of those innovations remain fragile, especially in Germany, where the disruptive approach of civil society organisations has not yet found its way into mainstream healthcare services.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          Unintended pregnancy and abortion by income, region, and the legal status of abortion: estimates from a comprehensive model for 1990–2019

          Unintended pregnancy and abortion estimates document trends in sexual and reproductive health and autonomy. These estimates inform and motivate investment in global health programmes and policies. Variability in the availability and reliability of data poses challenges for measuring and monitoring trends in unintended pregnancy and abortion. We developed a new statistical model that jointly estimated unintended pregnancy and abortion that aimed to better inform efforts towards global equity in sexual and reproductive health and rights.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Telemedicine for medical abortion: a systematic review

            Background Telemedicine is increasingly being used to access abortion services. Objective To assess the success rate, safety, and acceptability for women and providers of medical abortion using telemedicine. Search strategy We searched PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Web of Science up until 10 November 2017. Study criteria We selected studies where telemedicine was used for comprehensive medical abortion services, i.e. assessment/counselling, treatment, and follow up, reporting on success rate (continuing pregnancy, complete abortion, and surgical evacuation), safety (rate of blood transfusion and hospitalisation) or acceptability (satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and recommendation of the service). Data collection and analysis Quantitative outcomes were summarised as a range of median rates. Qualitative data were summarised in a narrative synthesis. Main results Rates relevant to success rate, safety, and acceptability outcomes for women ≤10+0 weeks’ gestation (GW) ranged from 0 to 1.9% for continuing pregnancy, 93.8 to 96.4% for complete abortion, 0.9 to 19.3% for surgical evacuation, 0 to 0.7% for blood transfusion, 0.07 to 2.8% for hospitalisation, 64 to 100% for satisfaction, 0.2 to 2.3% for dissatisfaction, and 90 to 98% for recommendation of the service. Rates in studies also including women >10+0 GW ranged from 1.3 to 2.3% for continuing pregnancy, 8.5 to 20.9% for surgical evacuation, and 90 to 100% for satisfaction. Qualitative studies on acceptability showed no negative impacts for women or providers. Conclusion Based on a synthesis of mainly self‐reported data, medical abortion through telemedicine seems to be highly acceptable to women and providers, success rate and safety outcomes are similar to those reported in literature for in‐person abortion care, and surgical evacuation rates are higher. Tweetable abstract A systematic review of medical abortion through telemedicine shows outcome rates similar to in‐person care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Towards an understanding of resilience: responding to health systems shocks

              Abstract The recent outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in West Africa has drawn attention to the role and responsiveness of health systems in the face of shock. It brought into sharp focus the idea that health systems need not only to be stronger but also more ‘resilient’. In this article, we argue that responding to shocks is an important aspect of resilience, examining the health system behaviour in the face of four types of contemporary shocks: the financial crisis in Europe from 2008 onwards; climate change disasters; the EVD outbreak in West Africa 2013–16; and the recent refugee and migration crisis in Europe. Based on this analysis, we identify ‘3 plus 2’ critical dimensions of particular relevance to health systems’ ability to adapt and respond to shocks; actions in all of these will determine the extent to which a response is successful. These are three core dimensions corresponding to three health systems functions: ‘health information systems’ (having the information and the knowledge to make a decision on what needs to be done); ‘funding/financing mechanisms’ (investing or mobilising resources to fund a response); and ‘health workforce’ (who should plan and implement it and how). These intersect with two cross-cutting aspects: ‘governance’, as a fundamental function affecting all other system dimensions; and predominant ‘values’ shaping the response, and how it is experienced at individual and community levels. Moreover, across the crises examined here, integration within the health system contributed to resilience, as does connecting with local communities, evidenced by successful community responses to Ebola and social movements responding to the financial crisis. In all crises, inequalities grew, yet our evidence also highlights that the impact of shocks is amenable to government action. All these factors are shaped by context. We argue that the ‘3 plus 2’ dimensions can inform pragmatic policies seeking to increase health systems resilience.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                celine.miani@uni-bielefeld.de
                Journal
                Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz
                Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz
                Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                1436-9990
                1437-1588
                11 December 2024
                11 December 2024
                2025
                : 68
                : 1
                : 53-61
                Affiliations
                [1 ]AG Epidemiologie und International Public Health, Fakultät für Gesundheitswissenschaften, Universität Bielefeld, ( https://ror.org/02hpadn98) Universität Str. 25, 33615 Bielefeld, Deutschland
                [2 ]Institut für Medizinische Soziologie (IMS), Profilzentrum für Gesundheitswissenschaften, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, ( https://ror.org/05gqaka33) Halle (Saale), Deutschland
                Article
                3995
                10.1007/s00103-024-03995-2
                11732907
                39663247
                1191412f-f9b9-4281-9633-515b7f2d4ecc
                © The Author(s) 2024

                Open Access Dieser Artikel wird unter der Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International Lizenz veröffentlicht, welche die Nutzung, Vervielfältigung, Bearbeitung, Verbreitung und Wiedergabe in jeglichem Medium und Format erlaubt, sofern Sie den/die ursprünglichen Autor(en) und die Quelle ordnungsgemäß nennen, einen Link zur Creative Commons Lizenz beifügen und angeben, ob Änderungen vorgenommen wurden.

                Die in diesem Artikel enthaltenen Bilder und sonstiges Drittmaterial unterliegen ebenfalls der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz, sofern sich aus der Abbildungslegende nichts anderes ergibt. Sofern das betreffende Material nicht unter der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz steht und die betreffende Handlung nicht nach gesetzlichen Vorschriften erlaubt ist, ist für die oben aufgeführten Weiterverwendungen des Materials die Einwilligung des jeweiligen Rechteinhabers einzuholen.

                Weitere Details zur Lizenz entnehmen Sie bitte der Lizenzinformation auf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.de.

                History
                : 30 June 2024
                : 21 November 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: Universität Bielefeld (3146)
                Categories
                Leitthema
                Custom metadata
                © Robert Koch-Institut 2025

                schwangerschaftsabbruch,europa,covid-19-pandemie,innovation,gesundheitssystem,abortion,europe,covid-19 pandemic,health systems

                Comments

                Comment on this article