ArticleBMJ open2020
Estimating abortion incidence and unintended pregnancy among adolescents in Zimbabwe, 2016: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estimating abortion incidence and unintended pregnancy among adolescents living in refugee settlements in Uganda.Conflict and health · 2026Article
- Incidence of unintended pregnancy and associated factors among adolescent girls and young women at risk of HIV infection in Kampala, Uganda.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate age-specific abortion incidence and unintended pregnancy in Zimbabwe, and to examine differences among adolescents by marital status and residence.
designWe used a variant of the Abortion Incidence Complications Methodology, an indirect estimation approach, to estimate age-specific abortion incidence. We used three surveys: the Health Facility Survey, a census of 227 facilities that provide postabortion care (PAC); the Health Professional Survey, a purposive sample of key informants knowledgeable about abortion (n=118) and the Prospective Morbidity Survey of PAC patients (n=1002).
settingPAC-providing health facilities in Zimbabwe.
participantsHealthcare providers in PAC-providing facilities and women presenting to facilities with postabortion complications. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was abortion incidence (in rates and ratios). The secondary outcome measure was the proportion of unintended pregnancies that end in abortion.
resultsAdolescent women aged 15-19 years had the lowest abortion rate at five abortions per 1000 women aged 15-19 years compared with other age groups. Adolescents living in urban areas had a higher abortion ratio compared with adolescents in rural areas, and unmarried adolescent women had a higher abortion ratio compared with married adolescents. Unintended pregnancy levels were similar across age groups, and adolescent women had the lowest proportion of unintended pregnancies that ended in induced abortion (9%) compared with other age groups.
conclusionsThis paper provides the first estimates of age-specific abortion and unintended pregnancy in Zimbabwe. Despite similar levels of unintended pregnancy across age groups, these findings suggest that adolescent women have abortions at lower rates and carry a higher proportion of unintended pregnancies to term than older women. Adolescent women are also not a homogeneous group, and youth-focused reproductive health programmes should consider the differences in experiences and barriers to care among young people that affect their ability to decide whether and when to parent.
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.