Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36210613›Full record

Trial reportStudies in family planning2022

Social Network-Based Induced Abortion Incidence Estimation in Burkina Faso: Examining the Impact of the Network Generating Question.

Suzanne O Bell, Georges Guiella, Selena Anjur-Dietrich, Fiacre Bazie, Yentema Onadja, Saifuddin Ahmed, Caroline Moreau

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Studies in family planning, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Suzanne O BellDepartment of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7650-5940
Georges GuiellaInstitut Supérieur des Sciences de la Population (ISSP), Université Joseph Ki-Zerbo, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Selena Anjur-DietrichDepartment of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5986-1858
Fiacre BazieInstitut Supérieur des Sciences de la Population (ISSP), Université Joseph Ki-Zerbo, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Yentema OnadjaInstitut Supérieur des Sciences de la Population (ISSP), Université Joseph Ki-Zerbo, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Saifuddin AhmedDepartment of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Caroline MoreauDepartment of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.

Funding

FIC NIH HHS L60 TW012222
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social network-based methods are increasingly used to estimate induced abortion incidence and investigate correlates. Approaches differ in the social tie definitions used to identify which social network members' abortion experiences respondents will report. This study compares the effect of using the "best friend" (closest female friend) versus "confidante" (specifying mutual sharing of personal information) definition on abortion incidence estimation. We use data from a nationally representative survey of women aged 15-49 in Burkina Faso (conducted in 2020-2021) where respondents were randomized into two versions of an abortion module, using different friend definitions. We computed abortion rate estimates by friend definition and adjusted for assumption violations (transmission bias, surrogate sample selection bias). Unadjusted incidence rates varied from 11.7 [4.1-19.2] abortions per 1,000 women to 15.6 [9.7-21.4], depending on friend definition. The confidante definition yielded higher adjusted estimates (36.2 [25.1-47.2]) than the best friend definition (17.0 [8.7-25.3]) due to greater transmission bias adjustment. Both estimates exceeded the respondent self-reported abortion incidence (4.0 [2.2-5.9]). Our results indicate that either friend definition produces higher incidence estimates than self-report but suggest a potential advantage for the "best friend" over the "confidante" definition given lower transmission bias. Further research should assess generalizability of these findings in other contexts.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedAbortion, SpontaneousBurkina FasoFemaleHumansIncidencePregnancySocial NetworkingSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID36210613
PMCPMC10092449

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.