ArticleBMJ open2026
Trends and factors associated with previous induced abortions among young women in Foshan, China: insights from a retrospective cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to explore the history of prior abortions and the factors influencing them among young women seeking abortion services in Foshan, Guangdong, China.
designThis is a retrospective, cross-sectional study of young women seeking abortion care.
settingGynaecological outpatient clinics at the Department of Gynaecology, Foshan Women and Children Hospital Affiliated to Guangdong Medical University, Foshan, Guangdong, China, between 2013 and 2023.
participantsA total of 7361 young women aged 12-25 years seeking abortion services. MEASURES: Data on abortion history, sociodemographic factors, contraceptive use and postabortion contraceptive choices were collected and analysed, with special emphasis on the incidence of repeat abortions and the factors associated with them.
resultsOf the 7361 participants, 34.2% reported at least one previous abortion, underscoring a notable public health concern. The mean age of the participants was 22.30 years (SD=2.13). Women with a history of abortion were significantly older than those without (22.57 vs 22.08 years, p<0.001). Logistic regression analyses suggested higher, but not statistically significant, odds of prior abortion among women aged 20-25 years compared with those aged 12-19 years (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.23, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.63, p=0.151). There was no significant difference in the odds of prior abortion between urban and rural residents (rural vs urban: aOR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.32, p=0.732), and single or divorced women had higher odds of reporting a prior abortion than married women (aOR 1.39, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.73, p=0.003). Importantly, while 13.92% of women reported using no contraceptive method at the time of conception, postabortion counselling reduced non-acceptance to only 3.65%, demonstrating the effectiveness of intervention but highlighting remaining gaps in prepregnancy contraceptive access. Women with a prior abortion history demonstrated higher postabortion contraceptive acceptance (80.30% vs 77.25%, p<0.01) and increased uptake of long-acting reversible contraception, particularly intrauterine devices and systems (18.96% vs 10.76%, p<0.001).
conclusionsThis study underscores the need for targeted interventions to address the multifaceted factors leading to repeat abortions among young women in China. The results offer valuable insights for improving reproductive health outcomes in this vulnerable population and highlight the importance of expanding access to contraceptive education and services in China.
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.