File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Medical versus surgical abortion methods for pregnancy in China: A cost-minimization analysis

TitleMedical versus surgical abortion methods for pregnancy in China: A cost-minimization analysis
Authors
Issue Date2011
PublisherS Karger AG. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.karger.com/GOI
Citation
Gynecologic And Obstetric Investigation, 2011, v. 72 n. 4, p. 257-263 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground: Both medical and surgical abortions are popular in developing countries. However, the monetary costs of these two methods have not been compared. Methods: 430 women seeking abortions were recruited in 2008. Either a medical or surgical method was used for the abortion. We adopted the perspective of a third-party payer. Cost-minimization analysis was used based on all charges for the overall procedures in an out-patient clinic in Guangzhou, China. Results: 219 subjects (51%) chose a medical method (mifepristone and misoprostol), whereas 211 subjects (49%) chose a surgical method. The efficacy in the surgical group was significantly higher than in the medical group (100 vs. 90%, p < 0.001). Surgical abortion incurred much more costs than medical abortion on average after initial treatment. When the subsequent costs were accumulated within the 2-week follow-up, the mean total cost in the medical group increased significantly due to failure of abortion and persistent bleeding. Patients undergoing medical abortion eventually incurred equivalent expenses compared to patients undergoing surgical abortion (p = 0.42). Conclusions: There was no difference in the mean final costs between the two abortion methods. Complications of persistent bleeding and failure to abort (requiring surgical intervention) in the medical treatment group increased the final mean total cost substantially. © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/143817
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.672
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.752
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorXia, Wen_HK
dc.contributor.authorShe, Sen_HK
dc.contributor.authorLam, THen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2011-12-21T08:56:38Z-
dc.date.available2011-12-21T08:56:38Z-
dc.date.issued2011en_HK
dc.identifier.citationGynecologic And Obstetric Investigation, 2011, v. 72 n. 4, p. 257-263en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0378-7346en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/143817-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Both medical and surgical abortions are popular in developing countries. However, the monetary costs of these two methods have not been compared. Methods: 430 women seeking abortions were recruited in 2008. Either a medical or surgical method was used for the abortion. We adopted the perspective of a third-party payer. Cost-minimization analysis was used based on all charges for the overall procedures in an out-patient clinic in Guangzhou, China. Results: 219 subjects (51%) chose a medical method (mifepristone and misoprostol), whereas 211 subjects (49%) chose a surgical method. The efficacy in the surgical group was significantly higher than in the medical group (100 vs. 90%, p < 0.001). Surgical abortion incurred much more costs than medical abortion on average after initial treatment. When the subsequent costs were accumulated within the 2-week follow-up, the mean total cost in the medical group increased significantly due to failure of abortion and persistent bleeding. Patients undergoing medical abortion eventually incurred equivalent expenses compared to patients undergoing surgical abortion (p = 0.42). Conclusions: There was no difference in the mean final costs between the two abortion methods. Complications of persistent bleeding and failure to abort (requiring surgical intervention) in the medical treatment group increased the final mean total cost substantially. © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel.en_HK
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherS Karger AG. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.karger.com/GOIen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofGynecologic and Obstetric Investigationen_HK
dc.subject.meshAbortifacient Agents - adverse effects - economicsen_HK
dc.subject.meshAbortion, Induced - adverse effects - economics - methodsen_HK
dc.subject.meshAdolescenten_HK
dc.subject.meshAdulten_HK
dc.subject.meshChinaen_HK
dc.subject.meshCost-Benefit Analysisen_HK
dc.subject.meshDrug Therapy, Combinationen_HK
dc.subject.meshFemaleen_HK
dc.subject.meshFollow-Up Studiesen_HK
dc.subject.meshHumansen_HK
dc.subject.meshMiddle Ageden_HK
dc.subject.meshMifepristone - adverse effects - economicsen_HK
dc.subject.meshMisoprostol - adverse effects - economicsen_HK
dc.subject.meshPregnancyen_HK
dc.subject.meshTreatment Outcomeen_HK
dc.subject.meshVacuum Curettage - adverse effects - economicsen_HK
dc.subject.meshYoung Adulten_HK
dc.titleMedical versus surgical abortion methods for pregnancy in China: A cost-minimization analysisen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.emailLam, TH:hrmrlth@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityLam, TH=rp00326en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_OA_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1159/000328313en_HK
dc.identifier.pmid21997301-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-83555161570en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros198035en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-83555161570&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume72en_HK
dc.identifier.issue4en_HK
dc.identifier.spage257en_HK
dc.identifier.epage263en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000297924500008-
dc.publisher.placeSwitzerlanden_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridXia, W=51964962500en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridShe, S=7005542632en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLam, TH=7202522876en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats