ArticleReproductive health matters2018
Comparing women's financial costs of induced abortion at a facility vs. seeking treatment for complications from unsafe abortion in Zambia.
Article in Reproductive health matters, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cost of Utilising Maternal Health Services in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.International journal of health policy and management · 2021Pooled it
- Identifying Profiles of Support for Legal Abortion Services in Zambia: A Latent Class Analysis.Studies in family planning · 2024Article
- The economics of abortion and its links with stigma: A secondary analysis from a scoping review on the economics of abortion.PloS one · 2021Article
- The microeconomics of abortion: A scoping review and analysis of the economic consequences for abortion care-seekers.PloS one · 2021Article
- Sexual and reproductive health services in universal health coverage: a review of recent evidence from low- and middle-income countries.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2020Review
- Patient and health system costs of managing pregnancy and birth-related complications in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review.Health economics review · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although abortion is legal in Zambia under a variety of broad conditions, unsafe abortion remains common. The purpose of this project was to compare the financial costs for women when they have an induced abortion at a facility, with costs for an induced abortion outside a facility, followed by care for abortion-related complications. We gathered household wealth data at one point in time (T1) and longitudinal qualitative data at two points in time (T1 and T2, three-four months later), in Lusaka and Kafue districts, between 2014 and 2015. The data were collected from women (n = 38) obtaining a legal termination of pregnancy (TOP), or care for unsafe abortions (CUA). The women were recruited from four health facilities (two hospitals and two private clinics, one of each per district). At T2, CUA cost women, on average, 520 ZMW (USD 81), while TOP cost women, on average, 396 ZMW (USD 62). About two-thirds of the costs had been incurred by T1, while an additional one-third of the total costs was incurred between T1 and T2. Women in all three wealth tertiles sought a TOP in a health facility or an unsafe abortion outside a facility. Women who obtained CUA tended to be further removed from the money that was used to pay for their abortion care. Women's financial dependence leaves them unequipped to manage a financial shock such as an abortion. Improved TOP and post-abortion care are needed to reduce the health sequelae women experience after both types of abortion-related care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.