Trial reportStudies in family planning2022
Social Network-Based Induced Abortion Incidence Estimation in Burkina Faso: Examining the Impact of the Network Generating Question.
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.
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.
- Feasibility and Validity of Mobile Phone-Based Proxy Full Pregnancy History (mPFPH) for Estimating Perinatal Mortality in Rural Northwest Bangladesh.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2026Article
- Article
- Cohort Profile: The Performance Monitoring for Action (PMA) panel surveys.International journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Direct and indirect estimation of adolescent sexual intercourse and contraceptive use in Rajasthan India: an application of the best friend methodology.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Estimating induced abortion incidence and the use of non-recommended abortion methods and sources in two provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa and Kongo Central) in 2021: results from population-based, cross-sectional surveys of reproductive-aged women.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 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
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.