An Application of the Confidante Method to Estimate Induced Abortion Incidence in Java, Indonesia.

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 Social Sciences International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2020-09-29 DOI:10.1363/46e0120
Melissa Stillman, Ellie Leong, Budi Utomo, Dadun Dadun, Riznawaty Imma Aryanty, Gilda Sedgh, Margaret M Giorgio
{"title":"An Application of the Confidante Method to Estimate Induced Abortion Incidence in Java, Indonesia.","authors":"Melissa Stillman,&nbsp;Ellie Leong,&nbsp;Budi Utomo,&nbsp;Dadun Dadun,&nbsp;Riznawaty Imma Aryanty,&nbsp;Gilda Sedgh,&nbsp;Margaret M Giorgio","doi":"10.1363/46e0120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Induced abortion is legally restricted and highly stigmatized in Indonesia, and is thus extremely difficult to measure. Indirect methods leveraging women's social networks, such as the Confidante Method, have shown promise in estimating hidden behaviors, including abortion, in similar settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A community-based survey was conducted among 8,696 women aged 15-49 in Java, Indonesia, in November 2018-January 2019. Data were collected via in-person interviews with respondents about their own abortions and those of up to three of their closest confidantes. One-year induced abortion incidence rates per 1,000 women were estimated using a direct-report approach and the Confidante Method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The direct-report abortion rate was 3.4 per 1,000 women in 2018, compared with the Confidante Method rate of 11.3 per 1,000. Among the confidantes of women who reported an abortion in the past five years, the abortion rate was 42.0 per 1,000. Half of the women reported that they had no confidantes with whom they shared private information. Among women reporting an abortion and at least one confidante, 58% had disclosed their abortion to their confidante, indicating that substantial transmission bias was present.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Confidante Method relies on several assumptions that did not hold in this study. Although the method performed better than the direct-report approach, it underestimated the incidence of abortion in Java. More research is needed to understand how abortion-related information is shared within social networks and to assess the appropriateness of applying the Confidante Method to estimate abortion in a given context.</p>","PeriodicalId":46940,"journal":{"name":"International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","volume":" ","pages":"199-210"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1363/46e0120","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: 14

Abstract

Context: Induced abortion is legally restricted and highly stigmatized in Indonesia, and is thus extremely difficult to measure. Indirect methods leveraging women's social networks, such as the Confidante Method, have shown promise in estimating hidden behaviors, including abortion, in similar settings.

Methods: A community-based survey was conducted among 8,696 women aged 15-49 in Java, Indonesia, in November 2018-January 2019. Data were collected via in-person interviews with respondents about their own abortions and those of up to three of their closest confidantes. One-year induced abortion incidence rates per 1,000 women were estimated using a direct-report approach and the Confidante Method.

Results: The direct-report abortion rate was 3.4 per 1,000 women in 2018, compared with the Confidante Method rate of 11.3 per 1,000. Among the confidantes of women who reported an abortion in the past five years, the abortion rate was 42.0 per 1,000. Half of the women reported that they had no confidantes with whom they shared private information. Among women reporting an abortion and at least one confidante, 58% had disclosed their abortion to their confidante, indicating that substantial transmission bias was present.

Conclusions: The Confidante Method relies on several assumptions that did not hold in this study. Although the method performed better than the direct-report approach, it underestimated the incidence of abortion in Java. More research is needed to understand how abortion-related information is shared within social networks and to assess the appropriateness of applying the Confidante Method to estimate abortion in a given context.

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
红颜法在印度尼西亚爪哇岛人工流产发生率估算中的应用。
背景:在印度尼西亚,人工流产在法律上是受限制的,并且被高度污名化,因此非常难以衡量。利用女性社交网络的间接方法,如红颜知己方法,在估计类似情况下的隐藏行为(包括堕胎)方面显示出了希望。方法:2018年11月至2019年1月,对印度尼西亚爪哇地区8696名15-49岁女性进行社区调查。数据是通过亲自采访受访者收集的,包括他们自己和他们最亲密的三个知己的堕胎情况。采用直接报告法和红颜法估计每1000名妇女一年人工流产的发生率。结果:2018年直接报告流产率为3.4 / 1000,红颜法流产率为11.3 / 1000。在过去五年中报告堕胎的妇女的知己中,堕胎率为42.0‰。一半的女性报告说她们没有可以分享私人信息的知己。在报告堕胎和至少一个知己的妇女中,58%的人向他们的知己透露了他们的堕胎,这表明存在实质性的传播偏见。结论:红颜知己方法依赖于几个在本研究中不成立的假设。虽然该方法优于直接报告方法,但它低估了爪哇的堕胎发生率。需要更多的研究来了解与堕胎有关的信息是如何在社会网络中共享的,并评估在给定背景下应用红颜方法来估计堕胎的适当性。
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