ArticlePopulation health metrics2023
The confidante method to measure abortion: implementing a standardized comparative analysis approach across seven contexts.
Article in Population health metrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Bayesian Framework to Account for Misclassification Error and Uncertainty in the Estimation of Abortion Prevalence.Studies in family planning · 2026Article
- Estimating the Social Visibility of Abortions in Uganda and Ethiopia Using the Game of Contacts.Studies in family planning · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObtaining representative abortion incidence estimates is challenging in restrictive contexts. While the confidante method has been increasingly used to collect this data in such settings, there are several biases commonly associated with this method. Further, there are significant variations in how researchers have implemented the method and assessed/adjusted for potential biases, limiting the comparability and interpretation of existing estimates. This study presents a standardized approach to analyzing confidante method data, generates comparable abortion incidence estimates from previously published studies and recommends standards for reporting bias assessments and adjustments for future confidante method studies.
methodsWe used data from previous applications of the confidante method in Côte d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Java (Indonesia), Nigeria, Uganda, and Rajasthan (India). We estimated one-year induced abortion incidence rates for confidantes in each context, attempting to adjust for selection, reporting and transmission bias in a standardized manner.
findingsIn each setting, majority of the foundational confidante method assumptions were violated. Adjusting for transmission bias using self-reported abortions consistently yielded the highest incidence estimates compared with other published approaches. Differences in analytic decisions and bias assessments resulted in the incidence estimates from our standardized analysis varying widely from originally published rates.
interpretationWe recommend that future studies clearly state which biases were assessed, if associated assumptions were violated, and how violations were adjusted for. This will improve the utility of confidante method estimates for national-level decision making and as inputs for global or regional model-based estimates of abortion.
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.