Table 3.
Acceptability of home-based and clinic-based medical abortion in studies included in systematic review comparing home-based and clinic-based medical abortion
| Study | Satisfied or highly satisfied with method (%) | Would choose method again (%) | Would select home use of miso for future medical abortion (%) | Would select clinic use for future medical abortion (%) | Would recommend method to a friend (%) | ||||||||||
| H | C | MD | H | C | MD | H | C | MD | H | C | MD | H | C | MD | |
| Akin et al 200424 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | 94.0 | 44.4 | 49.6 | 6.9 | 55.6 | −48.7 | NR | NR | NR |
| Alam et al 201325 | 92.1 | 93.6 | −1.5 | 76.2 | 15.4 | 60.8 | 93.0 | 41.3 | 51.7 | 7.0 | 58.7 | −51.7 | 76.8 | 16.1 | 60.7 |
| Alam et al 201826 | 95.3 | 93.4 | 1.9 | 94.4 | 94.2 | 0.2 | 86.4 | 60.5 | 25.9 | 13.5 | 39.5 | −26.0 | 97.2 | 94.2 | 3.0 |
| Bracken et al 200627 | 90.6 | 90.3 | 0.3 | NR | NR | NR | 95.6 | 40.4 | 55.2 | 4.4 | 60.0 | −55.6 | NR | NR | NR |
| Bracken 201028 | 90.7 | 92.3 | −1.6 | NR | NR | NR | 95.3 | NR | NR | NR | 67.1 | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Dagousset 200417 | 98.5 | 72.2 | 26.3 | 77.5 | 59.5 | 18.0 | 78.5 | 21.0 | 57.8 | NR | NR | NR | 78.8 | 50.67 | 28.13 |
| Elul 2001, Viet Nam35 | 91.0 | 87.0 | 4.0 | NR | NR | NR | 93.0 | 33.0 | 60.0 | 7.0 | 67.0 | −60.0 | NR | NR | NR |
| Elul 2001, Tunisia35 | 94.0 | 91.0 | 3.0 | NR | NR | NR | 96.0 | 69.0 | 27.0 | 5.0 | 31.0 | −26.0 | NR | NR | NR |
| Hajri et al 200429 | 94.1 | 88.3 | 5.8 | 96.5 | 89.4* | 7.1 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | 97.2 | 92.5* | 4.7 |
| Iygenar et al 201630 | 95.2 | 96.7 | −1.5 | 8.3 | 11.6 | −3.3 | 81.9 | 20.4 | 61.5 | 9.7 | 68.1 | −58.4 | 22.2 | 13.7 | 8.5 |
| Karki et al 200931 | 88.3 | 97.3 | −9.0 | 90.7 | 93.2 | −2.5 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | 92.9 | 98.6 | −5.7 |
| Li et al 201721 | 98.6 | 98.7 | −0.1 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Ngoc et al 200432 | 83.6 | 91.4 | −7.8 | NR | NR | NR | 96.1 | 38.5 | 57.6 | 2.0 | 61.5 | −59.5 | NR | NR | NR |
| Okonofua et al 201436 | 95.4 | 100 | −4.6 | 96.1 | 100 | −3.9 | 97.2 | 31.0 | 66.2 | 2.8 | 69 | −66.2 | 98.7 | 100 | −1.3 |
| Provansal et al 200916 | 98.0 | 92.9 | 5.1 | 91.1 | 79.6* | 11.5 | 89.1 | 85.0 | 4.1 | NR | NR | NR | 89.1 | 85.0 | 4.1 |
| Shresthra et al 201422 | 83.7 | 83.7 | 0.0 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Shuchita et al 200834 | 80 | 82.6 | −2.6 | NR | NR | NR | 88% | NR | NR | NR | 63% | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Song et al 201823 | 92.9 | 92.4 | 0.5 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
Raghavan et al33 2012 did not report on any acceptability variable.
*P<0.05.
C, clinic; H, home; MD, mean difference; NR, not reported.;