Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Interest in advance provision of abortion pills: a national survey of potential users in the USA
  1. Klaira Lerma1,
  2. Paul D Blumenthal2
  1. 1Population Research Center, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA
  2. 2Division of Family Planning Services and Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Ms Klaira Lerma, Population Research Center, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA; klairalerma{at}


Objective To assess interest in clinician-administered advance provision of abortion pills among potential users in the USA.

Methods Using social media advertisements, we recruited people living in the USA who were aged 18–45 years and assigned female at birth, who were not pregnant or planning pregnancy, for an online survey on reproductive health experiences and attitudes. We explored interest in advance provision of abortion pills, participant characteristics, including demographics and pregnancy history, contraceptive use, abortion knowledge and comfort, and healthcare system distrust. We used descriptive statistics to assess interest in advance provision, and ordinal regression modelling to evaluate differences in interest controlling for age, pregnancy history, contraceptive use, familiarity and comfort with medication abortion, and healthcare system distrust, reporting adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

Results From January-February 2022, we recruited 634 diverse respondents from 48 states, among whom 65% were interested, 12% neutral, and 23% disinterested in advance provision. There were no differences among interest groups by US region, race/ethnicity, or income. In the model, variables associated with interest included being aged 18–24 years (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.4) versus 35–45 years, using a tier 1 (permanent or long-acting reversible) or tier 2 (short-acting hormonal) contraceptive method (aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.1, and aOR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2 to 3.9, respectively) versus no contraception, being familiar or comfortable with the medication abortion process (aOR 4.2, 95% CI 2.8 to 6.2, and aOR 17.1, 95% CI 10.0 to 29.0, respectively), and having high healthcare system distrust (aOR 2.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 4.4) versus low distrust.

Conclusion As abortion access becomes more constrained, strategies are needed to ensure timely access. Advance provision is of interest to the majority of those surveyed and warrants further policy and logistical exploration.

  • abortion, induced
  • surveys and questionnaires
  • Reproductive Rights
  • Mifepristone
  • Patient Preference

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors KL and PDB designed and directed the study. Kathryn Batham oversaw study administration. Natalie Petersen and Aysha Muhith led recruitment and data collection. KL led the analysis and writing of the manuscript. KL and PDB are the guarantors of this work.

  • Funding This work was supported by Stanford Impact Labs (no grant ID number). The funder had no role in study design; data collection or analysis; interpretation of data; writing of the report; or the decision to submit the report for publication.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.