ArticleWomen's health (London, England)
Estimating abortion prevalence and understanding perspectives of community leaders and providers: Results from a mixed-method study in Istanbul, Turkey.
Article in Women's health (London, England). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reducing underreporting of abortion in surveys: Results from two test applications of the list experiment method in Malawi and Senegal.PloS one · 2021Trial
- Knowledge and Attitude of Lebanese Women Regarding Induced Abortion: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Gender differences in attitudes towards abortion: a cross-sectional study from Türkiye.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Continued or Discontinued Antidepressant Treatment During Pregnancy? A Single Center Long Term Follow-up Study.Turk psikiyatri dergisi = Turkish journal of psychiatry · 2025Article
- Comparison of abortion incidence estimates derived from direct survey questions versus the list experiment among women in Ohio.PloS one · 2022Article
- Favipiravir exposure and pregnancy outcome of COVID-19 patients.European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2022Article
- Estimating Prevalence of Abortion Using List Experiments: Findings from a Survey of Women in Delaware and Maryland.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's HealthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAbortions are difficult to measure; yet, accurate estimates are critical in developing health programs. We implemented and tested the validity of a list experiment of lifetime abortion prevalence in Istanbul, Turkey. We complemented our findings by understanding community perspectives using in-depth interviews with key informants.
methodsWe conducted a household survey between March and June 2018. In a random sample of 4040 married women aged 16-44 years, we implemented a double list experiment. We averaged difference in mean values calculations between the average counts for each list to provide an estimated lifetime abortion prevalence. We conducted in-depth interviews with 16 key informants to provide insights into possible explanations for the quantitative results.
resultsThe abortion prevalence estimate from the list experiment was close to that of the direct question (3.25% vs 2.97%). Key informant narratives suggest that differing definitions of abortion, inaccessibility, provider bias, lack of knowledge of abortion laws and safety, and religious norms could contribute to under-reporting. Results from the qualitative study suggest that abortion is largely inaccessible and highly stigmatized.
conclusionMeasuring experiences of abortion is critical to understanding women's needs and informing harm-reduction strategies; however, in highly stigmatized settings, researchers may face unique challenges in obtaining accurate reports.
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.