An Application of the List Experiment to Estimate Abortion Prevalence in Karachi, Pakistan.

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 Social Sciences International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2020-12-14 DOI:10.1363/46e0520
Sarah Huber-Krum, Kristy Hackett, Navdep Kaur, Sidrah Nausheen, Sajid Soofi, David Canning, Iqbal Shah
{"title":"An Application of the List Experiment to Estimate Abortion Prevalence in Karachi, Pakistan.","authors":"Sarah Huber-Krum,&nbsp;Kristy Hackett,&nbsp;Navdep Kaur,&nbsp;Sidrah Nausheen,&nbsp;Sajid Soofi,&nbsp;David Canning,&nbsp;Iqbal Shah","doi":"10.1363/46e0520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Abortion is particularly difficult to measure, especially in legally restrictive settings such as Pakistan. The List Experiment-a technique for measuring sensitive health behaviors indirectly-may minimize respondents' underreporting of abortion due to stigma or legal restrictions, but has not been previously applied to estimate abortion prevalence in Pakistan.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A sample of 4,159 married women of reproductive age were recruited from two communities of Karachi in 2018. Participants completed a survey that included a double list experiment to measure lifetime abortion prevalence, as well as direct questions about abortion and other background characteristics. Data were used to calculate direct and indirect estimates of abortion prevalence for the overall sample and by sociodemographic characteristics, as well as to test for a design effect. Regression analyses were conducted to examine associations between characteristics and abortion reporting from direct questioning and the list experiment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The estimate of abortion prevalence from the list experiment was 16%; the estimate from the direct question was 8%. No evidence of a design effect was found. Abortion reporting was associated with most selected characteristics in the regression model for direct questioning, but with few in the list experiment models.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>That the estimate of abortion prevalence in Karachi generated from the list experiment was twice that generated from direct questioning suggests that the indirect method reduced underreporting, and may have utility to estimate abortion in similar settings and to improve the accuracy of data collecting for other sensitive health topics.</p>","PeriodicalId":46940,"journal":{"name":"International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1363/46e0520","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: 5

Abstract

Context: Abortion is particularly difficult to measure, especially in legally restrictive settings such as Pakistan. The List Experiment-a technique for measuring sensitive health behaviors indirectly-may minimize respondents' underreporting of abortion due to stigma or legal restrictions, but has not been previously applied to estimate abortion prevalence in Pakistan.

Methods: A sample of 4,159 married women of reproductive age were recruited from two communities of Karachi in 2018. Participants completed a survey that included a double list experiment to measure lifetime abortion prevalence, as well as direct questions about abortion and other background characteristics. Data were used to calculate direct and indirect estimates of abortion prevalence for the overall sample and by sociodemographic characteristics, as well as to test for a design effect. Regression analyses were conducted to examine associations between characteristics and abortion reporting from direct questioning and the list experiment.

Results: The estimate of abortion prevalence from the list experiment was 16%; the estimate from the direct question was 8%. No evidence of a design effect was found. Abortion reporting was associated with most selected characteristics in the regression model for direct questioning, but with few in the list experiment models.

Conclusions: That the estimate of abortion prevalence in Karachi generated from the list experiment was twice that generated from direct questioning suggests that the indirect method reduced underreporting, and may have utility to estimate abortion in similar settings and to improve the accuracy of data collecting for other sensitive health topics.

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
清单实验在估计巴基斯坦卡拉奇堕胎率中的应用。
背景:堕胎尤其难以衡量,特别是在巴基斯坦等法律限制的国家。清单实验——一种间接测量敏感健康行为的技术——可以最大限度地减少受访者因耻辱或法律限制而少报堕胎的情况,但以前没有应用于估计巴基斯坦的堕胎流行率。方法:2018年从卡拉奇的两个社区招募了4159名已婚育龄妇女。参与者完成了一项调查,其中包括一个双表实验,以衡量终生堕胎的流行程度,以及关于堕胎和其他背景特征的直接问题。数据被用来计算整个样本和社会人口统计学特征的堕胎率的直接和间接估计,以及检验设计效应。采用回归分析的方法,从直接询问和清单实验两方面考察特征与流产报告之间的关系。结果:清单实验估计流产率为16%;从直接问题中得出的估计是8%。没有发现设计效应的证据。在直接询问的回归模型中,堕胎报告与大多数选择的特征相关,但在列表实验模型中很少。结论:通过清单实验得出的卡拉奇堕胎率估计值是通过直接询问得出的估计值的两倍,这表明间接方法减少了少报现象,可能有助于估计类似情况下的堕胎率,并提高其他敏感健康问题数据收集的准确性。
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