ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025
Combining the list-experiment and direct question to improve estimation of abortion incidence.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Abortion has been found to be severely underreported overall, and underreported differentially across groups, when using a direct question. The list-experiment method attempts to overcome these reporting biases indirectly by asking how many items an individual has experienced, but not which, where abortion is one of the items asked to a randomly assigned "treatment" group but not to a control group. Abortion incidence is estimated as the difference in the mean number of items reported between the treatment and control groups. If list-experiment respondents are also asked a direct abortion question, a combined-data estimator can be constructed from respondents with and without affirmative responses to the direct question. We assess for four US states how this combined estimator may improve estimation of cumulative lifetime abortion incidence relative to the direct question or the list experiment alone. Our combined-data estimate across the four states is 12.9% (95% CI, 10.5, 15.4), which is substantively and statistically higher than both the list-experiment estimate (11.0%, CI, 8.9, 13.2) and the direct-question estimate (9.6%, CI, 8.6, 10.5). Bias by state is much more variable for the direct question than for the list experiment. We conclude that the combined-data estimator improves estimation especially over the direct question.
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.