ArticleScientific reports2025
Assessing induced abortion underreporting in restrictive settings using prospective morbidity surveys from Kenya, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate estimation of induced abortion rates in legally restrictive contexts remains a challenge because fear of prosecution and stigma hinder truthful reporting among women. We examined induced abortion reporting accuracy by assessing the agreement between women's self-reports of induced abortion and provider diagnosis of women's abortions. We used data from three prospective morbidity surveys conducted in health facilities in Kenya (surveyed in 2022), Liberia (surveyed in 2021), and Sierra Leone (surveyed in 2021). The data were collected from post-abortion care (PAC) patients and healthcare providers in health facilities across Liberia (137 facilities), Sierra Leone (294 facilities), and Kenya (74 facilities). The data collectors were trained enumerators who were health providers and mostly females. Data analysis involved Kappa statistics to assess the agreement between PAC patients' self-reports and provider diagnosis regarding whether the abortion for which women sought PAC were induced or spontaneous, accounting for interviewer and respondent socio-demographic characteristics. Overall, 1888 pairs of PAC patient and provider prospective morbidity survey interviews were completed: 965 (Kenya), 401 (Liberia), and 522 (Sierra Leone). Fewer women (26.2% in Liberia, 28.5% in Kenya, and 28.7% in Sierra Leone) self-reported induced abortions compared to the provider diagnoses (Kenya, 42.3%; 41.3% in Liberia; 43.5% in Sierra Leone). Across the three countries, there was a 13.8-15.2% difference in the proportions of induced abortions based on women's self-reports and provider diagnoses. In cases where providers reported induced abortions while patients indicated miscarriages, 23% of such cases had clinical evidence of induction (e.g., presence of foreign bodies in the genital tract or signs of trauma in the cervix), whereas 77% did not have any recorded symptoms. Interviews conducted by males showed substantial to almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.73). The level of agreement between women's self-report and provider diagnosis was substantially greater among women with a secondary or tertiary education compared to those with primary education (κ = 0.68 vs. κ = 0.67). The agreement levels did not vary significantly by age and marital status. Direct methods for estimating the incidence of induced abortion are unlikely to generate accurate data because women underreport, and providers may misdiagnose induced abortions. Researchers should acknowledge the limitations of direct abortion estimation methods and carefully recruit and train interviewers to minimize biases and enhance reporting accuracy. We emphasize combining indirect methods with direct methods to improve the reliability and precision of induced abortion estimates.
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.