Prevalence of Induced Abortion in Iran: A Comparison of Two Indirect Estimation Techniques
Prevalence of Induced Abortion in Iran: A Comparison of Two Indirect Estimation Techniques
复制标题
DOI：
10.1363/44e6218
复制
发表时间：
2018-06-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Fotouhi, Akbar
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ghofrani, Marziyeh;Asghari, Fariba;Fotouhi, Akbar
背景：使用直接问题来确定妇女人工流产史的调查往往低估了人工流产的流行率，特别是在伊朗这样的情况下，人工流产受到法律限制，而且受到高度污名化。没有以前的研究比较了两种间接技术估计流产prevalence.METHODS：一个样本的708名已婚妇女被招募从一家公立医院在德黑兰2013年8月至12月。参与者完成了一项调查，其中包括使用随机应答技术（RRT）和不匹配计数技术（UCT）进行人工流产估计，以及有关人口统计学特征的问题，对堕胎直接问题的信任，以及RRT和UCT的可理解性和信任。计算每种技术的人工流产率。斯皮尔曼相关性被用来评估是否可理解性和信任的估计方法与妇女的年龄和education.RESULTS：人工流产的患病率估计为14%使用RRT和12%使用UCT，估计没有显着差异。91%的妇女报告UCT非常容易理解; RRT的比例为78%。63%的妇女报告说完全相信UCT的保密性; RRT的比例为50%。年龄与UCT的可理解性呈负相关（相关系数，-0.13），并且对RRT和UCT都具有信任（分别为-0.12和-0.08）;教育与两种方法的信任直接相关（0.24和0.22）。结论：在这两种间接方法中，UCT在估计识字率低、限制堕胎的环境中的人工流产流行率方面可能更简单、更可靠。
CONTEXT: Surveys that use direct questions to ascertain women's history of induced abortion tend to underestimate abortion prevalence, especially in such contexts as Iran where the procedure is legally restricted and highly stigmatized. No previous study has compared two indirect techniques for estimating abortion prevalence.METHODS: A sample of 708 married women were recruited from one public hospital in Tehran between August and December 2013. Participants completed a survey, which included induced abortion estimation using the randomized response technique (RRT) and the unmatched count technique (UCT), as well as questions about demographic characteristics, trust in direct questions about abortion, and comprehensibility of and trust in RRT and UCT. Prevalence of induced abortion was calculated for each technique. Spearman correlation was used to evaluate whether comprehensibility of and trust in estimation methods were associated with women's age and education.RESULTS: The prevalence of induced abortion was estimated to be 14% using RRT and 12% using UCT; the estimates were not significantly different. Ninety-one percent of women reported that UCT was very easy to comprehend; the proportion for RRT was 78%. Sixty-three percent of women reported completely trusting in the confidentiality of UCT; the proportion for RRT was 50%. Age was inversely associated with comprehensibility for UCT (correlation coefficient, -0.13), and with trust for both RRT and UCT (-0.12 and -0.08, respectively); education was directly associated with trust for both methods (0.24 and 0.22).CONCLUSIONS: Of the two indirect methods, UCT may be simpler and more dependable for the estimation of induced abortion prevalence in low-literacy, abortion-restricted settings.