Comparison of abortion incidence estimates derived from direct survey questions versus the list experiment among women in Ohio.
Comparison of abortion incidence estimates derived from direct survey questions versus the list experiment among women in Ohio.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0269476
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
堕胎在美国受到高度污名化，这妨碍了在调查中对其进行准确的衡量。名单试验旨在改进对堕胎史的报告。我们评估了列表实验是否比两个直接问题导致更高的堕胎经历报告。利用来自俄亥俄州育龄成年妇女的代表性调查数据，我们使用两个直接问题和双列表实验来检查堕胎史。通过双列表实验，我们要求受访者报告他们经历了两个健康项目列表中的多少个;一个列表包括堕胎。我们比较了这些措施和受访者的人口统计学特征（年龄和社会经济地位）之间的加权流产史。堕胎史的估计是相似的直接和列表实验问题。当用堕胎史这两个不同的直接问题来衡量时，所有受访者中有8.4%和8.0%表示曾经堕胎，而在清单实验中，有8.5%表示曾经堕胎。在中西部州一级的调查中，与直接问题相比，列表实验并没有导致堕胎报告的增加。亚组分析需要更大的样本，未来的迭代应纳入相关但非污名化的控制项目，以减少此类亚组分析的错误分类和功效不足。
Abortion is highly stigmatized in the United States which prevents its accurate measurement in surveys. The list experiment aims to improve the reporting of abortion history. We evaluated whether a list experiment resulted in higher reporting of abortion experiences than did two direct questions. Utilizing data from a representative survey of adult women of reproductive age in Ohio, we examined abortion history using two direct questions and a double list experiment. Through the double list experiment, we asked respondents to report how many of two lists of health items they had experienced; one list included abortion. We compared weighted history of abortion between these measures and by respondent demographic characteristics (age and socioeconomic status). Estimates of abortion history were similar between direct and list experiment questions. When measured with the two different direct question of abortion history, 8.4% and 8.0% of all respondents indicated ever having an abortion and with the list experiment, 8.5% indicated ever having an abortion. In a Midwestern state-level survey, the list experiment did not lead to increases in abortion reporting as compared to the direct questions. Subgroup analyses require larger samples, and future iterations should incorporate related but non-stigmatized control items to reduce misclassification and under-powering of such subgroup analyses.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
Shellenberg, Kristen M.;Moore, Ann M.;Tsui, Amy O.
通讯作者：
Tsui, Amy O.
DOI：
10.1363/44e6218
发表时间：
2018-06-01
影响因子：
4.4
作者：
Ghofrani, Marziyeh;Asghari, Fariba;Fotouhi, Akbar
通讯作者：
Fotouhi, Akbar
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
Glynn, Adam N.
通讯作者：
Glynn, Adam N.
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
Moseson, Heidi;Gerdts, Caitlin;Vittinghoff, Eric
通讯作者：
Vittinghoff, Eric
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Rocca, Corinne H.;Samari, Goleen;Kimport, Katrina
通讯作者：
Kimport, Katrina