Prevalence of Induced Abortion in Iran: A Comparison of Two Indirect Estimation Techniques.

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 Social Sciences International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2018-06-01 DOI:10.1363/44e6218
Marziyeh Ghofrani, Fariba Asghari, Maryam Kashanian, Hojat Zeraati, Akbar Fotouhi
{"title":"Prevalence of Induced Abortion in Iran: A Comparison of Two Indirect Estimation Techniques.","authors":"Marziyeh Ghofrani,&nbsp;Fariba Asghari,&nbsp;Maryam Kashanian,&nbsp;Hojat Zeraati,&nbsp;Akbar Fotouhi","doi":"10.1363/44e6218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Surveys that use direct questions to ascertain women's history of induced abortion tend to underestimate abortion prevalence, especially in such contexts as Iran where the procedure is legally restricted and highly stigmatized. No previous study has compared two indirect techniques for estimating abortion prevalence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A sample of 708 married women were recruited from one public hospital in Tehran between August and December 2013. Participants completed a survey, which included induced abortion estimation using the randomized response technique (RRT) and the unmatched count technique (UCT), as well as questions about demographic characteristics, trust in direct questions about abortion, and comprehensibility of and trust in RRT and UCT. Prevalence of induced abortion was calculated for each technique. Spearman correlation was used to evaluate whether comprehensibility of and trust in estimation methods were associated with women's age and education.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The prevalence of induced abortion was estimated to be 14% using RRT and 12% using UCT; the estimates were not significantly different. Ninety-one percent of women reported that UCT was very easy to comprehend; the proportion for RRT was 78%. Sixty-three percent of women reported completely trusting in the confidentiality of UCT; the proportion for RRT was 50%. Age was inversely associated with comprehensibility for UCT (correlation coefficient, -0.13), and with trust for both RRT and UCT (-0.12 and -0.08, respectively); education was directly associated with trust for both methods (0.24 and 0.22).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Of the two indirect methods, UCT may be simpler and more dependable for the estimation of induced abortion prevalence in low-literacy, abortion-restricted settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":46940,"journal":{"name":"International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","volume":"44 2","pages":"73-79"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1363/44e6218","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Context: Surveys that use direct questions to ascertain women's history of induced abortion tend to underestimate abortion prevalence, especially in such contexts as Iran where the procedure is legally restricted and highly stigmatized. No previous study has compared two indirect techniques for estimating abortion prevalence.

Methods: A sample of 708 married women were recruited from one public hospital in Tehran between August and December 2013. Participants completed a survey, which included induced abortion estimation using the randomized response technique (RRT) and the unmatched count technique (UCT), as well as questions about demographic characteristics, trust in direct questions about abortion, and comprehensibility of and trust in RRT and UCT. Prevalence of induced abortion was calculated for each technique. Spearman correlation was used to evaluate whether comprehensibility of and trust in estimation methods were associated with women's age and education.

Results: The prevalence of induced abortion was estimated to be 14% using RRT and 12% using UCT; the estimates were not significantly different. Ninety-one percent of women reported that UCT was very easy to comprehend; the proportion for RRT was 78%. Sixty-three percent of women reported completely trusting in the confidentiality of UCT; the proportion for RRT was 50%. Age was inversely associated with comprehensibility for UCT (correlation coefficient, -0.13), and with trust for both RRT and UCT (-0.12 and -0.08, respectively); education was directly associated with trust for both methods (0.24 and 0.22).

Conclusions: Of the two indirect methods, UCT may be simpler and more dependable for the estimation of induced abortion prevalence in low-literacy, abortion-restricted settings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
伊朗人工流产的流行:两种间接估计技术的比较。
背景:使用直接问题来确定妇女人工流产史的调查往往低估了堕胎的流行程度,特别是在伊朗这样的背景下,堕胎在法律上受到限制,而且受到高度的歧视。以前没有研究比较过两种估算流产率的间接技术。方法:2013年8月至12月在德黑兰一家公立医院招募708名已婚妇女。参与者完成了一项调查,包括使用随机反应技术(RRT)和不匹配计数技术(UCT)进行人工流产估计,以及关于人口统计学特征的问题,对堕胎直接问题的信任,以及对RRT和UCT的可理解性和信任。计算每种技术的人工流产率。使用Spearman相关来评估估计方法的可理解性和信任是否与女性的年龄和教育程度相关。结果:RRT组人工流产率为14%,UCT组为12%;估计结果没有显著差异。91%的女性报告说,UCT非常容易理解;RRT的比例为78%。63%的女性表示完全信任UCT的机密性;RRT的比例为50%。年龄与UCT的可理解性呈负相关(相关系数为-0.13),与RRT和UCT的信任度呈负相关(分别为-0.12和-0.08);教育程度与两种方法的信任直接相关(0.24和0.22)。结论:在两种间接方法中,UCT可能更简单、更可靠地估计在低文化水平、限制堕胎的环境中人工流产的发生率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Women's Perspectives on Contraceptive-Induced Amenorrhea in Burkina Faso and Uganda. Provider and Women Characteristics as Risk Factors for Postpartum Copper IUD Expulsion and Discontinuation in Nepal. Assessing Readiness to Provide Comprehensive Abortion Care in the Democratic Republic of the Congo After Passage of the Maputo Protocol. An Application of the List Experiment to Estimate Abortion Prevalence in Karachi, Pakistan. Chilean Medical and Midwifery Faculty's Views on Conscientious Objection for Abortion Services.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1