Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33076922›Full record

ArticlePopulation health metrics2020

Social network-based measurement of abortion incidence: promising findings from population-based surveys in Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, and Rajasthan, India.

Suzanne O Bell, Mridula Shankar, Elizabeth Omoluabi, Anoop Khanna, Hyacinthe Kouakou Andoh, Funmilola OlaOlorun, Danish Ahmad, Georges Guiella, Saifuddin Ahmed, Caroline Moreau

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Population health metrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Suzanne O BellDepartment of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. suzannebell@jhu.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7650-5940
Mridula ShankarDepartment of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Elizabeth OmoluabiDepartment of Statistics and Population Studies, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.
Anoop KhannaIndian Institute of Health Management Research, Jaipur, India.
Hyacinthe Kouakou AndohProgramme National de Santé de la Mère et de l'Enfant (PNSME), Abidjan, République de Côte d'Ivoire.
Funmilola OlaOlorunCollege of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.
Danish AhmadIndian Institute of Health Management Research, Jaipur, India.
Georges GuiellaInstitut Supérieur des Sciences de la Population (ISSP), University of Ouagadougou, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Saifuddin AhmedDepartment of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Caroline MoreauDepartment of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMonitoring abortion rates is highly relevant for demographic and public health considerations, yet its reliable estimation is fraught with uncertainty due to lack of complete national health facility service statistics and bias in self-reported survey data. In this study, we aim to test the confidante methodology for estimating abortion incidence rates in Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, and Rajasthan, India, and develop methods to adjust for violations of assumptions.

methodsIn population-based surveys in each setting, female respondents of reproductive age reported separately on their two closest confidantes' experience with abortion, in addition to reporting about their own experiences. We used descriptive analyses and design-based F tests to test for violations of method assumptions. Using post hoc analytical techniques, we corrected for biases in the confidante sample to improve the validity and precision of the abortion incidence estimates produced from these data.

resultsResults indicate incomplete transmission of confidante abortion knowledge, a biased confidante sample, but reduced social desirability bias when reporting on confidantes' abortion incidences once adjust for assumption violations. The extent to which the assumptions were met differed across the three contexts. The respondent 1-year pregnancy removal rate was 18.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 14.9-22.5) abortions per 1000 women of reproductive age in Nigeria, 18.8 (95% CI 11.8-25.8) in Cote d'Ivoire, and 7.0 (95% CI 4.6-9.5) in India. The 1-year adjusted abortion incidence rates for the first confidantes were 35.1 (95% CI 31.1-39.1) in Nigeria, 31.5 (95% CI 24.8-38.1) in Cote d'Ivoire, and 15.2 (95% CI 6.1-24.4) in Rajasthan, India. Confidante two's rates were closer to confidante one incidences than respondent incidences. The adjusted confidante one and two incidence estimates were significantly higher than respondent incidences in all three countries.

conclusionsFindings suggest that the confidante approach may present an opportunity to address some abortion-related data deficiencies but require modeling approaches to correct for biases due to violations of social network-based method assumptions. The performance of these methodologies varied based on geographical and social context, indicating that performance may be better in settings where abortion is legally and socially restricted.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedSocial NetworkingAdolescentAdultCote d'IvoireFemaleHumansIncidenceIndiaMiddle AgedNigeriaPregnancySurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultAbortionMeasurementSurvey

Identifiers

PMID33076922
PMCPMC7574299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.