ArticleStudies in family planning2026
A Bayesian Framework to Account for Misclassification Error and Uncertainty in the Estimation of Abortion Prevalence.
Article in Studies in family planning, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Obtaining reliable estimates of the prevalence of induced abortion remains a significant challenge in abortion research. Recently, one indirect, survey-based technique for measuring abortion outcomes, the confidante method, has gained particular attention. The method has been applied in various social and legal contexts; however, its efficacy has not been uniformly established. Increasingly, focus has shifted to assessing the method's key assumptions and quantifying the biases that arise from violations of them. We propose a general statistical framework to conceptualize and quantify the impact of biases on measuring abortion prevalence from such surveys. Specifically, we define the relationship between observed and true abortion prevalence based on misclassification error related to the sensitivity and specificity of the survey instrument. This formulation leads naturally to a Bayesian modeling approach to estimate abortion prevalence, allowing for differing knowledge of and different levels of uncertainty about the misclassification parameters to be incorporated in the modeling process, with that uncertainty being propagated through to the final estimates. We illustrate our framework and modeling approach on data from an application of the confidante method in Uganda in 2018, where we account for systematic differences in confidante abortion reports based on the self-reported abortion experiences of survey respondents.
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.