Decision making on unsafe abortions in Sri Lanka: a case-control study

Reproductive Health

Lalini C Rajapaksa²  Carukshi Arambepola¹ 

[1] Department of Community Medicine, University of Colombo, Kynsey Road, Colombo 8, Sri Lanka;Former Professor in Community Medicine, University of Colombo, Kynsey Road, Colombo 8, Sri Lanka

关键词: Access and availability;    Circumstances;    Unsafe abortion;    Decision making;   

Others  :  1131952
DOI  :  10.1186/1742-4755-11-91

 received in 2014-06-21, accepted in 2014-12-10,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Following an unintended pregnancy, not every woman would invariably choose to undergo an unsafe abortion. It suggests that in the decision making process, women face both ‘push’ factors that favour abortion and ‘pull’ factors that work against it. This study assessed the circumstances that surrounded a woman’s decision to undergo an unsafe abortion, compared to a decision to continue, when faced with an unintended pregnancy in Sri Lanka.

Methods

An unmatched case-control study was conducted among 171 women admitted to nine hospitals in eight districts following an unsafe abortion (Cases) and 600 women admitted to the same hospitals for delivery of an unintended term pregnancy (Controls). Interviewer-administered-questionnaires and in-depth interviews assessed women’s characteristics, decision making process and underlying reasons for their decision. The risk of abortion related to their decision making was assessed using odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Compared to controls, the cases were significantly less-educated, employed, unmarried and primi-gravid (p < 0.05). All knew the ‘illegal’ status of abortion, mainly through media (65.5% cases versus 80% controls). When making a decision, the risk of undergoing an unsafe abortion was significant among those who sought assistance (44% versus 32%; OR = 1.7 (95% CI = 1.2-2.4)), with more reliance placed on non-medical sources such as spouse/partner, friend, neighbour and family/relation. Speaking to women with past experience of induced abortions (31% versus 21.5%; OR = 1.6 (1.1-2.4) and failure in making the final decision with partners also imparted a significant risk for abortion (64% versus 34%; OR = 3.4; 2.4-4.8). A decision favouring unsafe abortion was predominantly based on their economic instability (29.5%) and poor support by partners (14%), whereas a decision against it was based on ethical considerations (44% religious beliefs: 12% social stigma) over its legal implications (4%). Most abortions were performed by unqualified persons (36.1% self proclaimed abortionists; 26.2% not revealed their qualifications) for a wide range of payment in non-sterile environments (45.9% unknown place) using septic procedures (38.5% trans-vaginal insertions; 24.6% unaware of the procedure).

Conclusions

Women’s risk of unsafe abortion was associated with unreliable sources of information during decision making that led to poor knowledge and positive attitudes on its safety; poor access to affordable abortion services; and their economic instability.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Arambepola and Rajapaksa; licensee BioMed Central.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Grimes DA, Benson J, Singh S, Romero M, Ganatra B, Okonofua FE, Shah IH: Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic. Lancet 2006, 368(9550):1908-1919.
• [2]Sedgh G, Henshaw S, Singh S, Åhman E, Shah IH: Induced abortion: estimated rates and trends worldwide. Lancet 2007, 370(9595):1338-1345.
• [3]World Health Organization: The prevention and management of unsafe abortion. Report of aTechnical Working Group. Geneva: ᅟ; 1992.
• [4]Haddad LB, Nawal MN: Unsafe abortion: unnecessary maternal mortality. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2009, 2(2):122.
• [5]Department of Census and Statistics: Sri Lanka Demographic and Health Survey 2006-07. Colombo: ᅟ; 2007.
• [6]Rajapakse L: Estimates of induced abortions in urban and rural Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka: Report of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo; 2000.
• [7]Corbett MR, Turner KL: Essential elements of postabortion care: origins, evolution and future directions. Int Fam Plan Perspect 2003, 29(3):106-111.
• [8]Alex IM: Determinants of unsafe abortion in developing countries. In Preventing unsafe abortion and its consequences: priorities for Research and Action. Edited by Warriner IK, Shah IH. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2006:51-71.
• [9]Bracken MB, Klerman LV, Bracken M: Abortion, adoption, or motherhood: an empirical study of decision-making during pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1978, 130(3):251-262.
• [10]Sihvo S, Bajos N, Ducot B, Kaminski M: Women’s life cycle and abortion decision in unintended pregnancies. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003, 57(8):601-605.
• [11]Tong WT, Wah YL, Yut LW, Sim PC, Ravindran J: Exploring pregnancy termination experiences and needs among Malaysian women: A qualitative study. BMC Public Health 2012, 12(1):743. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Rajapaksa LC, De Silva WI: Profile of Women Seeking Abortion. Sri Lanka: Report of the University of Colombo; 2000.
• [13]Thalagala N: Process, determinants and impact of unsafe abortions in Sri Lanka. Family Planning Association of Sri Lanka: Colombo, Sri Lanka; 2010.
• [14]Perera J, de Silva T, Gange H: Knowledge, behaviour and attitudes on induced abortion and family planning among Sri Lankan women seeking termination of pregnancy. Ceylon Med J 2004, 49(1):14-17.
• [15]Gipson JD, Koenig MA, Hindin MJ: The effects of unintended pregnancy on infant, child, and parental health: a review of the literature. Stud Fam Plann 2008, 39(1):18-38.
• [16]Sousa A, Lozano R, Gakidou E: Exploring the determinants of unsafe abortion: improving the evidence base in Mexico. Health Policy Plan 2010, 25(4):300-310.
• [17]World Health Organization: Studying unsafe abortion: a practical guide. Geneva: ᅟ; 1996.
• [18]Banerjee SK, Andersen KL, Buchanan RM, Warvadekar J: Woman-centered research on access to safe abortion services and implications for behavioral change communication interventions: a cross-sectional study of women in Bihar and Jharkhand, India. BMC Public Health 2012, 12(1):175. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Norman WV, Hestrin B: Access to complex abortion care service and planning improved through a toll-free telephone resource line. 2013.
• [20]Mitchell EMH, Silke H, Ana A, Leila A, Carolyn TH: Brazilian adolescents’ knowledge and beliefs about abortion methods: a school-based internet inquiry. BMC Womens Health 2014, 14(1):27. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21]Bengtsson AM: Information needs among Italian abortion patients. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1997, 43(2):84-88.
• [22]Faria G, Elwin B, Goodman LM: Women and abortion: attitudes, social networks, decision-making. Soc Work Health Care 1985, 11(1):85-99.
• [23]Savitz DA, Whelan EA, Rowland AS, Kleckner RC: Maternal employment and reproductive risk factors. Am J Epidemiol 1990, 132(5):933-945.
• [24]Allison B, Drake JK, Goodyear L, Gopinath CY, Kaufman A, Bhattarai S: The role of interpersonal communication in preventing unsafe abortion in communities: the Dialogues for Life Project in Nepal. J Health Commun 2011, 16(3):245-263.
• [25]Banerjee SK, Andersen KL, Baird TL, Ganatra B, Batra S, Warvadekar J: Evaluation of a multi-pronged intervention to improve access to safe abortion care in two districts in Jharkhand. BMC Health Serv Res 2014, 14(1):227. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]Schwandt HM, Creanga AA, Adanu RMK, Danso KA, Agbenyega T, Hindin MJ: Pathways to unsafe abortion in Ghana: the role of male partners, women and health care providers. Contraception 2013, 88(4):509-517.
• [27]Font-Ribera L, Pérez G, Salvador J, Borrell C: Socioeconomic inequalities in unintended pregnancy and abortion decision. J Urban Health 2008, 85(1):125-135.
• [28]Banerjee SK, Andersen K: Exploring the pathways of unsafe abortion in Madhya Pradesh, India. Glob Public Health 2012, 7(8):882-896.
• [29]Ban DJ, Kim JINHYUN, De Silva WI: Induced abortion in Sri Lanka: who goes to providers for pregnancy termination? J Biosoc Sci 2002, 34(3):303-316.
• [30]Bankole A, Singh S, Taylor H: Reasons why women have induced abortions: evidence from 27 countries. Int Fam Plan Perspect 1998, 24:117-127.
• [31]Finer LB, Lori FF, Lindsay AD, Singh S, Moore AM: Reasons US women have abortions: quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2005, 37(3):110-118.
• [32]Holmgren K, Uddenberg N: Abortion ethics-women's post abortion assessments. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1994, 73(6):492-496.
• [33]Onah HE, Ogbuokiri CM, Obi SN, Oguanuo TC: Knowledge, attitude and practice of private medical practitioners towards abortion and post abortion care in Enugu, south-eastern Nigeria. J Obstet Gynaecol 2009, 29(5):415-418.
• [34]Astbury‒Ward E, Odette P, Carnwell R: Stigma, Abortion, and Disclosure—Findings from a Qualitative Study. J Sex Med 2012, 9(12):3137-3147.
• [35]Lane SD, Jok MJ, El-Mouelhy MT: Buying safety: the economics of reproductive risk and abortion in Egypt. Soc Sci Med 1998, 47(8):1089-1099.
• [36]Nathanson CA, Marshall HB: Physician behavior as a determinant of utilization patterns: the case of abortion. Am J Public Health 1978, 68(11):1104-1114.