Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Reproductive Health
Published in: Reproductive Health 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research

Relationship of family formation characteristics with unsafe abortion: is it confounded by women’s socio-economic status? - A case–control study from Sri Lanka

Authors: Carukshi Arambepola, Lalini C. Rajapaksa, Deepika Attygalle, Loshan Moonasinghe

Published in: Reproductive Health | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Literature shows that choice for unsafe abortion is often driven by poverty. However, factors related to the family formation behaviour of women are also implied as determinants of this decision. This study assessed which family formation characteristics of women are associated with the risk of unsafe abortion, without being confounded by their low socio-economic status among Sri Lankan women admitted to hospital following post-abortion complications.

Methods

An unmatched case–control study was conducted in nine hospitals in eight districts in Sri Lanka among 171 women with post-abortion complications following unsafe abortion (Cases) and 600 postpartum mothers admitted to same hospitals during the same period for delivery of term unintended pregnancies (Controls). Interviewer-administered-questionnaires obtained demographic, socio-economic and family formation related characteristics. Risk factors of abortion were assessed by odds-ratio (OR), adjusted for their socio-economic status in logistic regression analysis.

Results

Low socio-economic status, characterised by low-education (adjusted OR = 1.5; 95 % CI = 1.1–2.4) and less/unskilled occupations (2.3; 1.4–3.6) was a significant risk factor for unsafe abortion. Independent of this risk, being unmarried (9.3; 4.0–21.6), failure in informed decisions about desired family size (2.2; 1.4–3.5), not having a girl–child (2.2; 1.4–3.4) and longer average birth intervals (0.7 years; 0.6–0.8) signified the vulnerability of women for unsafe abortion. Cases were as fast as the controls in their family completion (4.3 versus 4.5 years; p = 0.4), but were at increased risk for abortion, if their average birth intervals (including the last one) were longer. Previous contraceptive use, age at reproductive events or partners’ characteristics did not impart any risk for abortion.

Conclusions

Low socio-economic status is not the most influencing risk factor for unsafe abortions leading to complications, but many other factors in relation to their family formation characteristics that are independent of their low socio-economic status.
Literature
1.
World Health Organization. The prevention and management of unsafe abortion. Report of a Technical Working Group. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1992.
2.
World Health Organization. Unsafe abortion: global and regional estimates of the incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality in 2008. 6th ed. 2011.
3.
Sedgh G, Singh S, Henshaw SK, Bankole A. Legal abortion worldwide in 2008: levels and recent trends. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2011;43(3):188–98.CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
Ministry of Health. Annual report on family health in Sri Lanka 2013. Colombo: Family Health Bureau; 2014.
6.
Corbett MR, Turner KL. Essential elements of postabortion care: origins, evolution and future directions. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2003;29(3):106–11.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Department of Census and Statistics. Sri Lanka Demographic and Health Survey 2006–07. Colombo: Ministry of Healthcare and Nutrition, Sri Lanka; 2007.
8.
Kodagoda N, Senanayake P. Some aspects of abortion in Sri Lanka. In International planned parenthood federation. London; 1982: 25.
9.
Perera DC, Rajapaksa LC. A community-based study on socio-demographic characteristics of women reporting an induced abortion. Ceylon J Med Sci. 1991;34:63–74.
10.
Rajapakse L. Estimates of induced abortions in urban and rural Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka: Report of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo; 1999.
11.
Boonstra HD, Gold RB, Richards CL, Finer LB. Abortion in women’s lives. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2006.
12.
Sousa A, Lozano R, Gakidou E. Exploring the determinants of unsafe abortion: improving the evidence base in Mexico. Health Policy Plan. 2010;25(4):300–10.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Elu MC. Between political debate and women’s suffering: abortion in Mexico. In: Mundigo AI, Indriso C, editors. Abortion in the developing world. New Delhi: Vistaar Publications; 1999. p. 245–58.
14.
Bankole A, Singh S, Haas T. Characteristics of women who obtain induced abortion: a worldwide review. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 1999;25(2):68–77.CrossRef
15.
Alex IM. Determinants of unsafe abortion in developing countries. In: Warriner IK, Shah IH, editors. Preventing unsafe abortion and its consequences: priorities for Research and Action. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2006. p. 51–71.
16.
Misago C, Fonseca W, Correia L, Fernandes L, Campbell O. Determinants of abortion among women admitted to hospitals in Fortaleza, North Eastern Brazil. Int J Epidemiol. 1998;27(5):833–9.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Bernabé-Ortiz A, White PJ, Carcamo CP, Hughes JP, Gonzales MA, Garcia PJ, Garnett GP, Holmes KK. Clandestine induced abortion: prevalence, incidence and risk factors among women in a Latin American country. Can Med Assoc J. 2009;180(3):298–304.
18.
Rasch V, Muhammad H, Urassa E, Bergström S. The problem of illegally induced abortion: results from a hospital-based study conducted at district level in Dar es Salaam. Trop Med Int Health. 2000;5(7):495–502.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Rehan N, Inayatullah A, Chaudhary I. Characteristics of Pakistani women seeking abortion and a profile of abortion clinics. J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2001;10(8):805–10.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Lema VM, Rogo KO, Kamau RK. Induced abortion in Kenya: its determinants and associated factors. East Afr Med J. 1996;73(3):164–8.PubMed
21.
World Health Organization. Studying unsafe abortion: a practical guide. Geneva; 1996.
22.
23.
Arambepola C, Rajapaksa LC, Galwaduge C. Usual hospital care versus post-abortion care for women with unsafe abortion: a case control study from Sri Lanka. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:470.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
25.
26.
Okonofua FE, Odimegwu C, Ajabor H, Daru PH, Johnson A. Assessing the prevalence and determinants of unwanted pregnancy and induced abortion in Nigeria. Stud Fam Plann. 1999;30(1):67–77.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Thalagala N. Process, determinants and impact of unsafe abortions in Sri Lanka. Colombo: Family Planning Association of Sri Lanka; 2010.
28.
Harper CC, Blanchard K, Grossman D, Henderson JT, Darney PD. Reducing maternal mortality due to elective abortion: potential impact of misoprostol in low-resource settings. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2007;98:66–9.CrossRef
29.
Miller S, Lehman T, Campbell M, et al. Misoprostol and declining abortion-related morbidity in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic: a temporal association. BJOG. 2005;112:1291–6.CrossRefPubMed
30.
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):14–7.PubMed
31.
Ankomah A, Aloo‐Obunga C, Chu M, Manlagnit A. Unsafe abortions: methods used and characteristics of patients attending hospitals in Nairobi, Lima, and Manila. Health Care Women Int. 1997;18(1):43–53.CrossRefPubMed
32.
De Silva WI. Consistency between reproductive preferences and behavior: the Sri Lankan experience. Stud Fam Plann. 1991;22(3):188–97.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Shah I, Åhman E. Unsafe abortion: global and regional incidence, trends, consequences and challenges. J Obstetr Gynaecol Canada. 2009;31(12):1149–58.CrossRef
34.
Singh S. Hospital admissions resulting from unsafe abortion: estimates from 13 developing countries. Lancet. 2006;368(9550):1887–92.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Relationship of family formation characteristics with unsafe abortion: is it confounded by women’s socio-economic status? - A case–control study from Sri Lanka
Authors
Carukshi Arambepola
Lalini C. Rajapaksa
Deepika Attygalle
Loshan Moonasinghe
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Reproductive Health / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1742-4755
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-016-0173-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Reproductive Health 1/2015 Go to the issue

Commentary

Reducing neonatal mortality associated with preterm birth: gaps in knowledge of the impact of antenatal corticosteroids on preterm birth outcomes in low-middle income countries

Study protocol

Diagnostic methods to determine microbiology of postpartum endometritis in South Asia: laboratory methods protocol used in the Postpartum Sepsis Study: a prospective cohort study

Research

Young people’s parental discussion about sexual and reproductive health issues and its associated factors in Awabel woreda, Northwest Ethiopia

Research

Maternal death and obstetric care audits in Nigeria: a systematic review of barriers and enabling factors in the provision of emergency care

Research

Implementation and acceptability of strategies instituted for engaging men in family planning services in Kibaha district, Tanzania

Editorial

Reproductive Health is pleased to announce a mandatory open data policy in the journal