Social Network-Based Induced Abortion Incidence Estimation in Burkina Faso: Examining the Impact of the Network Generating Question.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q2 DEMOGRAPHY Studies in Family Planning Pub Date : 2022-12-01 Epub Date: 2022-10-09 DOI:10.1111/sifp.12213
Suzanne O Bell, Georges Guiella, Selena Anjur-Dietrich, Fiacre Bazie, Yentema Onadja, Saifuddin Ahmed, Caroline Moreau
{"title":"Social Network-Based Induced Abortion Incidence Estimation in Burkina Faso: Examining the Impact of the Network Generating Question.","authors":"Suzanne O Bell, Georges Guiella, Selena Anjur-Dietrich, Fiacre Bazie, Yentema Onadja, Saifuddin Ahmed, Caroline Moreau","doi":"10.1111/sifp.12213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Social network-based methods are increasingly used to estimate induced abortion incidence and investigate correlates. Approaches differ in the social tie definitions used to identify which social network members' abortion experiences respondents will report. This study compares the effect of using the \"best friend\" (closest female friend) versus \"confidante\" (specifying mutual sharing of personal information) definition on abortion incidence estimation. We use data from a nationally representative survey of women aged 15-49 in Burkina Faso (conducted in 2020-2021) where respondents were randomized into two versions of an abortion module, using different friend definitions. We computed abortion rate estimates by friend definition and adjusted for assumption violations (transmission bias, surrogate sample selection bias). Unadjusted incidence rates varied from 11.7 [4.1-19.2] abortions per 1,000 women to 15.6 [9.7-21.4], depending on friend definition. The confidante definition yielded higher adjusted estimates (36.2 [25.1-47.2]) than the best friend definition (17.0 [8.7-25.3]) due to greater transmission bias adjustment. Both estimates exceeded the respondent self-reported abortion incidence (4.0 [2.2-5.9]). Our results indicate that either friend definition produces higher incidence estimates than self-report but suggest a potential advantage for the \"best friend\" over the \"confidante\" definition given lower transmission bias. Further research should assess generalizability of these findings in other contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":22069,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Family Planning","volume":"53 4","pages":"639-655"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10092449/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Family Planning","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/sifp.12213","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/10/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Social network-based methods are increasingly used to estimate induced abortion incidence and investigate correlates. Approaches differ in the social tie definitions used to identify which social network members' abortion experiences respondents will report. This study compares the effect of using the "best friend" (closest female friend) versus "confidante" (specifying mutual sharing of personal information) definition on abortion incidence estimation. We use data from a nationally representative survey of women aged 15-49 in Burkina Faso (conducted in 2020-2021) where respondents were randomized into two versions of an abortion module, using different friend definitions. We computed abortion rate estimates by friend definition and adjusted for assumption violations (transmission bias, surrogate sample selection bias). Unadjusted incidence rates varied from 11.7 [4.1-19.2] abortions per 1,000 women to 15.6 [9.7-21.4], depending on friend definition. The confidante definition yielded higher adjusted estimates (36.2 [25.1-47.2]) than the best friend definition (17.0 [8.7-25.3]) due to greater transmission bias adjustment. Both estimates exceeded the respondent self-reported abortion incidence (4.0 [2.2-5.9]). Our results indicate that either friend definition produces higher incidence estimates than self-report but suggest a potential advantage for the "best friend" over the "confidante" definition given lower transmission bias. Further research should assess generalizability of these findings in other contexts.

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
布基纳法索基于社会网络的人工流产发生率估算:检验网络生成问题的影响。
基于社会网络的方法越来越多地被用于估算人工流产发生率和调查相关因素。在确定受访者将报告哪些社交网络成员的人工流产经历时,所使用的社交纽带定义各不相同。本研究比较了使用 "最好的朋友"(最亲密的女性朋友)和 "知己"(指定相互共享个人信息)定义对人工流产发生率估算的影响。我们使用的数据来自布基纳法索一项针对 15-49 岁女性的全国代表性调查(于 2020-2021 年进行),在该调查中,受访者被随机分配到两个版本的人工流产模块中,并使用了不同的朋友定义。我们按朋友定义计算了流产率估计值,并对违反假设的情况(传播偏差、代用样本选择偏差)进行了调整。根据朋友定义的不同,未经调整的流产率从每千名妇女 11.7 [4.1-19.2] 例流产到 15.6 [9.7-21.4] 例流产不等。知己定义得出的调整后估计值(36.2 [25.1-47.2])高于挚友定义(17.0 [8.7-25.3]),原因是传播偏差调整更大。这两个估计值都超过了受访者自我报告的流产发生率(4.0 [2.2-5.9])。我们的结果表明,无论哪种朋友定义都能产生比自我报告更高的发生率估计值,但由于传播偏倚较低,"最好的朋友 "定义比 "知己 "定义可能更具优势。进一步的研究应评估这些发现在其他情况下的可推广性。
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
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
9.50%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Studies in Family Planning publishes public health, social science, and biomedical research concerning sexual and reproductive health, fertility, and family planning, with a primary focus on developing countries. Each issue contains original research articles, reports, a commentary, book reviews, and a data section with findings for individual countries from the Demographic and Health Surveys.
期刊最新文献
Unwanted Family Planning Including Unwanted Sterilization: Preliminary Prevalence Estimates for India. The Reliability of Contraceptive Discontinuation Reporting in Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Uganda. Contraceptive Care Visit Objectives and Outcomes: Evidence From Burkina Faso, Pakistan, and Tanzania. Estimating the Social Visibility of Abortions in Uganda and Ethiopia Using the Game of Contacts Women's Perspectives on the Unique Benefits and Challenges of Self‐Injectable Contraception: A Four‐Country In‐Depth Interview Study in Sub‐Saharan Africa
×
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