Measurement of abortion safety using community-based surveys: Findings from three countries

Autoři: Suzanne O. Bell aff001;  Funmilola OlaOlorun aff002;  Mridula Shankar aff001;  Danish Ahmad aff003;  Georges Guiella aff004;  Elizabeth Omoluabi aff005;  Anoop Khanna aff003;  Andoh Kouakou Hyacinthe aff006;  Caroline Moreau aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States of America aff001;  College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria aff002;  Indian Institute of Health Management Research, Jaipur, India aff003;  Institut Supérieur des Sciences de la Population (ISSP), Université de Ouagadougou, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso aff004;  Center for Research, Evaluation Resources and Development, Ile-Ife, Nigeria aff005;  Programme National de Santé de la Mère et de l'Enfant (PNSME), Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire aff006;  Gender, Sexual and Reproductive Health, CESP Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health U1018, Inserm, Villejuif, France aff007
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223146


This study aimed to measure abortion safety in Nigeria, Cote d’Ivoire, and Rajasthan, India using population-based abortion data from representative samples of reproductive age women. Interviewers asked women separately about their experience with “pregnancy removal” and “period regulation at a time when you were worried you were pregnant”, and collected details on method(s) and source(s) of abortion. We operationalized safety along two dimensions: 1) whether the method(s) used were non-recommended and put the woman at potentially high risk of abortion related morbidity and mortality (i.e. methods other than surgery and medication abortion drugs); and 2) whether the source(s) used involved a non-clinical (or no) provider(s). We combined source and method information to categorize a woman’s abortion into one of four safety categories. In Nigeria (n = 1,800), 29.1% of abortions involved a recommended method and clinical provider, 5.4% involved a recommended method and non-clinical provider, 2.1% involved a non-recommended method and clinical provider, and 63.4% involved a non-recommended method and non-clinical provider. The corresponding estimates were 32.7%, 3.0%, 1.9%, and 62.4% in Cote d’Ivoire (n = 645) and 39.7%, 25.5%, 3.4%, and 31.4% in Rajasthan (n = 454). Results demonstrate that abortion safety, as measured by abortion related process data, is generally low but varies significantly by legal context. The policy and programmatic strategies employed to improve abortion safety and quality of care are likely to differ for women in different abortion safety categories.

Klíčová slova:

Death rates – Morbidity – Nigeria – Obstetric procedures – Pregnancy – Quality of care – Religion – Termination of pregnancy


1. World Health Organization. Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems, 2nd edition: World Health Organization; 2012.

2. Grimes DA, Benson J, Singh S, Romero M, Ganatra B, Okonofua FE, et al. Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic. The Lancet. 2006;368(9550):1908–19.

3. Zane S, Creanga AA, Berg CJ, Pazol K, Suchdev DB, Jamieson DJ, et al. Abortion-Related Mortality in the United States 1998–2010. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2015;126(2):258. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000945 26241413

4. Raymond EG, Grimes DA. The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2012;119(2 Pt 1):215–9. Epub 2012/01/25. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31823fe923 22270271.

5. Upadhyay UD, Johns NE, Barron R, Cartwright AF, Tapé C, Mierjeski A, et al. Abortion-related emergency department visits in the United States: An analysis of a national emergency department sample. BMC medicine. 2018;16(1):88. doi: 10.1186/s12916-018-1072-0 29898742

6. Kassebaum NJ, Bertozzi-Villa A, Coggeshall MS, Shackelford KA, Steiner C, Heuton KR, et al. Global, regional, and national levels and causes of maternal mortality during 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2014;384(9947):980–1004. Epub 2014/05/07. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60696-6 24797575; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4255481.

7. Say L, Chou D, Gemmill A, Tuncalp O, Moller AB, Daniels J, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. The Lancet Global health. 2014;2(6):e323–33. Epub 2014/08/12. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70227-X 25103301.

8. Juarez F, Singh S, Garcia SG, Olavarrieta CD. Estimates of induced abortion in Mexico: what's changed between 1990 and 2006? International Family Planning Perspectives. 2008:158–68.

9. Miller S, Lehman T, Campbell M, Hemmerling A, Brito Anderson S, Rodriguez H, et al. Misoprostol and declining abortion‐related morbidity in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic: a temporal association. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2005;112(9):1291–6.

10. Faundes A, Santos L, Carvalho M, Gras C. Post-abortion complications after interruption of pregnancy with misoprostol. Advances in Contraception. 1996;12(1):1–9. 8739511

11. World Health Organization. Unsafe abortion incidence and mortality: global and regional levels in 2008 and trends during 1990–2008. World Health Organization, 2012.

12. Footman K, Keenan K, Reiss K, Reichwein B, Biswas P, Church K. Medical Abortion Provision by Pharmacies and Drug Sellers in Low‐and Middle‐Income Countries: A Systematic Review. Studies in family planning. 2018;49(1):57–70. doi: 10.1111/sifp.12049 29508948

13. Gerdts C, Hudaya I. Quality of Care in a Safe-Abortion Hotline in Indonesia: Beyond Harm Reduction. American journal of public health. 2016;106(11):2071–5. Epub 2016/09/16. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303446 27631756; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5055796.

14. Gerdts C, Jayaweera RT, Baum SE, Hudaya I. Second-trimester medication abortion outside the clinic setting: an analysis of electronic client records from a safe abortion hotline in Indonesia. BMJ sexual & reproductive health. 2018. Epub 2018/07/20. doi: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2018-200102 30021794; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6225793.

15. Aiken AR, Digol I, Trussell J, Gomperts R. Self reported outcomes and adverse events after medical abortion through online telemedicine: population based study in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2017;357:j2011.

16. Jelinska K, Yanow S. Putting abortion pills into women's hands: realizing the full potential of medical abortion. Contraception. 2018;97(2):86–9. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2017.05.019 28780241

17. World Health Organization. Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidance for Health Systems, 2nd Edition. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2012.

18. Sedgh G, Filippi V, Owolabi OO, Singh SD, Askew I, Bankole A, et al. Insights from an expert group meeting on the definition and measurement of unsafe abortion. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2016;134(1):104–6.

19. Ganatra B, Gerdts C, Rossier C, Johnson BR Jr, Tunçalp Ö, Assifi A, et al. Global, regional, and subregional classification of abortions by safety, 2010–14: estimates from a Bayesian hierarchical model. The Lancet. 2017;390(10110):2372–81.

20. Zimmerman L, Olson H, Tsui A, Radloff S. PMA2020: Rapid Turn‐Around Survey Data to Monitor Family Planning Service and Practice in Ten Countries. Studies in Family Planning. 2017:1–11.

21. Bell SO, Shankar M, Omoluabi E, Khanna A, Hyacinthe A, OlaOlorun F, et al. Methodological Advances in Survey-Based Abortion Estimation: Promising Findings from Nigeria, India, and Cote d’Ivoire. Population Association of America Annual Meeting; Austin, Texas2019.

22. Sedgh G, Bearak J, Singh S, Bankole A, Popinchalk A, Ganatra B, et al. Abortion incidence between 1990 and 2014: global, regional, and subregional levels and trends. The Lancet. 2016;388(10041):258–67.

23. Darney BG, Powell B, Andersen K, Baum SE, Blanchard K, Gerdts C, et al. Quality of care and abortion: beyond safety. British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 2018.

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 11