Contraception
Volume 76, Issue 1 , Pages 66-70 , July 2007

Increasing access to safe abortion services in rural India: experiences with medical abortion in a primary health center

  • Shuchita Mundle

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Government Medical College, Nagpur 440003, India
    • ,
  • Batya Elul

      Affiliations

    • Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA
    • ,
  • Abhijeet Anand

      Affiliations

    • Formerly, Population Council, New Delhi 110003, India
    • ,
  • Shveta Kalyanwala

      Affiliations

    • Formerly, Population Council, New Delhi 110003, India
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Population Council, India Habitat Center, New Delhi 110 003, India. Tel.: +91 11 2464 4008/4009; fax: +91 11 2464 2903.
    • ,
  • Suresh Ughade

      Affiliations

    • Population Council, New Delhi 110003, India

Received 5 December 2006 ,Revised 14 February 2007 ,Accepted 21 March 2007.

References 

  1. Government of India . Survey of causes of maternal deaths (rural): annual report. New Delhi: Office of the Registrar General of India; 1990;
  2. Khan ME, Barge S, Kumar N, Almroth S. Abortion in India: current situation and future challenges. In:  Pachauri S editors. Implementing a reproductive health agenda in India: the beginning. New Delhi: Population Council; 1999;p. 507–529
  3. Coyaji K, Elul B, Krishna U, et al. Mifepristone abortion outside the urban research hospital setting in India. Lancet. 2001;357:120–121
  4. Coyaji K, Elul B, Krishna U, Otiv S, et al. Mifepristone–misoprostol abortion: a trial in rural and urban Maharashtra, India. Contraception. 2002;66:33–40
  5. Takkar D, Aggarwal N, Seghal R, Buckshee K. Early abortion by mifepristone (RU 486) followed by vaginal gel (metenprost) versus oral (misoprostol) prostaglandin. Advances in Contraception. 1999;15:163–173
  6. Winikoff B, Sivin I, Coyaji KJ, et al. Safety, efficacy, and acceptability of medical abortion in China, Cuba, and India: a comparative trial of mifepristone–misoprostol versus surgical abortion. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;176:431–437
  7. Winikoff B, Sivin I, Coyaji KJ. et al. The acceptability of medical abortion in China, Cuba and India. Int Fam Plann Perspect 1997;23:73–8, 89.
  8. World Health Organisation Task Force on Post-Ovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation . Termination of pregnancy with reduced doses of mifepristone. BMJ. 1993;307:532–537
  9. World Health Organisation Task Force on Post-Ovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation . Comparison of two doses of mifepristone in combination with misoprostol for early medical abortion: a randomised trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2000;107:524–530
  10. Elul B, Hajri S, Ngoc NN, et al. Can women in less-developed countries use a simplified medical abortion regimen?. Lancet. 2001;357:1402–1405
  11. World Health Organisation . Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2003;
  12. Tang OS, Schwer H, Seyberth HW, Sharon WH, Ho PC. Pharmacokinetics of different routes of administration of misoprostol. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:332–336
  13. Winikoff B, Ellertson C, Clark S. Analysis of failure in medical abortion. Contraception. 1996;54:323–327
  14. Elul B, Ellertson C, Winikoff B, Coyaji K. Side effects of mifepristone–misoprostol abortion versus surgical abortion. Contraception. 1999;59:107–114
  15. Tang OS, Chang CCW, Ng EHY, Lee SWH, Ho PC. A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial on the use of mifepristone with sublingual or vaginal misoprostol for medical abortions of less than 9 weeks gestation. Hum Reprod. 2003;11:2315–2318

PII: S0010-7824(07)00147-3

doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2007.03.010

Contraception
Volume 76, Issue 1 , Pages 66-70 , July 2007

Article Tools