利用接触游戏估算乌干达和埃塞俄比亚堕胎的社会可见度

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-11-13 DOI:10.1111/sifp.12278
Margaret Giorgio, Solomon Shiferaw, Fredrick Makumbi, Assefa Seme, Simon Peter Sebina Kibira, Sarah Nabukeera, Selena Anjur‐Dietrich, Mahari Yihdego, Niguse Tadele, Elizabeth Sully
{"title":"利用接触游戏估算乌干达和埃塞俄比亚堕胎的社会可见度","authors":"Margaret Giorgio, Solomon Shiferaw, Fredrick Makumbi, Assefa Seme, Simon Peter Sebina Kibira, Sarah Nabukeera, Selena Anjur‐Dietrich, Mahari Yihdego, Niguse Tadele, Elizabeth Sully","doi":"10.1111/sifp.12278","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social network–based data collection methods that rely on third‐party reporting have emerged as a promising approach for measuring abortion in restrictive settings. In order for these methods to accurately measure abortion incidence, they must also assess the visibility of abortions within social networks. Failure to do so may result in estimates affected by transmission bias, caused by imperfect knowledge of all abortions within one's social network. In this paper, we present exploratory research that uses respondent‐driven sampling (RDS) and the game of contacts method to measure abortion visibility in four sites in Uganda and Ethiopia. We assess the existence of potential biases in the game of contacts estimate of abortion visibility in each site by conducting several internal and external validity tests. While these tests provided some promising results, other factors such as the representativeness of the RDS samples, direct versus indirect abortion knowledge transfers, and the generalizability of the study sites may have introduced biases into the final estimates of abortion visibility in this study. We conclude by making recommendations on how applications of this methodology could be improved to better estimate abortion‐related transmission bias.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Estimating the Social Visibility of Abortions in Uganda and Ethiopia Using the Game of Contacts\",\"authors\":\"Margaret Giorgio, Solomon Shiferaw, Fredrick Makumbi, Assefa Seme, Simon Peter Sebina Kibira, Sarah Nabukeera, Selena Anjur‐Dietrich, Mahari Yihdego, Niguse Tadele, Elizabeth Sully\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/sifp.12278\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Social network–based data collection methods that rely on third‐party reporting have emerged as a promising approach for measuring abortion in restrictive settings. In order for these methods to accurately measure abortion incidence, they must also assess the visibility of abortions within social networks. Failure to do so may result in estimates affected by transmission bias, caused by imperfect knowledge of all abortions within one's social network. In this paper, we present exploratory research that uses respondent‐driven sampling (RDS) and the game of contacts method to measure abortion visibility in four sites in Uganda and Ethiopia. We assess the existence of potential biases in the game of contacts estimate of abortion visibility in each site by conducting several internal and external validity tests. While these tests provided some promising results, other factors such as the representativeness of the RDS samples, direct versus indirect abortion knowledge transfers, and the generalizability of the study sites may have introduced biases into the final estimates of abortion visibility in this study. We conclude by making recommendations on how applications of this methodology could be improved to better estimate abortion‐related transmission bias.\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/sifp.12278\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/sifp.12278","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

依靠第三方报告的基于社会网络的数据收集方法已成为衡量限制性环境中堕胎情况的一种有前途的方法。为了使这些方法能够准确测量堕胎率,它们还必须评估堕胎在社会网络中的可见度。如果做不到这一点,可能会导致估计值受到传播偏差的影响,而传播偏差是由于对个人社交网络中所有堕胎情况的了解不完全造成的。在本文中,我们介绍了一项探索性研究,该研究采用受访者驱动抽样(RDS)和接触博弈法来测量乌干达和埃塞俄比亚四个地点的堕胎能见度。我们通过进行若干内部和外部有效性测试,评估了接触游戏法对每个地点堕胎能见度的估计是否存在潜在偏差。虽然这些测试提供了一些有希望的结果,但其他因素,如 RDS 样本的代表性、堕胎知识的直接与间接转移以及研究地点的普遍性,都可能会给本研究中堕胎能见度的最终估计值带来偏差。最后,我们就如何改进该方法的应用提出了建议,以便更好地估计与人工流产相关的传播偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Estimating the Social Visibility of Abortions in Uganda and Ethiopia Using the Game of Contacts
Social network–based data collection methods that rely on third‐party reporting have emerged as a promising approach for measuring abortion in restrictive settings. In order for these methods to accurately measure abortion incidence, they must also assess the visibility of abortions within social networks. Failure to do so may result in estimates affected by transmission bias, caused by imperfect knowledge of all abortions within one's social network. In this paper, we present exploratory research that uses respondent‐driven sampling (RDS) and the game of contacts method to measure abortion visibility in four sites in Uganda and Ethiopia. We assess the existence of potential biases in the game of contacts estimate of abortion visibility in each site by conducting several internal and external validity tests. While these tests provided some promising results, other factors such as the representativeness of the RDS samples, direct versus indirect abortion knowledge transfers, and the generalizability of the study sites may have introduced biases into the final estimates of abortion visibility in this study. We conclude by making recommendations on how applications of this methodology could be improved to better estimate abortion‐related transmission bias.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Management of Cholesteatoma: Hearing Rehabilitation. Congenital Cholesteatoma. Evaluation of Cholesteatoma. Management of Cholesteatoma: Extension Beyond Middle Ear/Mastoid. Recidivism and Recurrence.
×
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