Skip to main content
Guttmacher Institute

Search

  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade Overturned
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • United States

Articles

  • Global research
  • US research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Opinion

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • United States
  • US State Laws and Policies

Data, Videos & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Videos
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work by Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • Newsletter
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Ways to Give
  • Guttmacher Guardians
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • 2024 Impact Report

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
Guttmacher Institute
Donate

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade Overturned
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • United States

Articles

  • Global research
  • US research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Opinion

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • United States
  • US State Laws and Policies

Data, Videos & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Videos
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work by Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • Newsletter
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Ways to Give
  • Guttmacher Guardians
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • 2024 Impact Report

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact
Demographic Research

Estimating abortion incidence using the network scale-up method

Authors

Elizabeth A. Sully, Guttmacher Institute Margaret Giorgio, Guttmacher Institute Selena Anjur-Dietrich, John Hopkins University

Background: A major challenge in abortion research is accurately measuring the incidence of induced abortion, particularly in restrictive settings. This study tests the network scale-up method (NSUM) to measure abortion incidence, which uses respondent social network data to estimates the size of hidden populations.

Methods: Using NSUM modules added to the Ethiopia and Uganda 2018 Performance Monitoring for Action (PMA) community-based surveys, we compute NSUM abortion incidence ratios, and adjust these ratios to account for transmission bias. We conduct internal validity checks to assess the NSUM performance.

Results: The unadjusted NSUM abortion ratios were likely underestimates (Uganda: 15.3 per 100 births, Ethiopia: 3.6 per 100 births). However, the transmission bias-adjusted NSUM abortion ratios grossly overestimated abortion (Uganda: 151.4 per 100 births, Ethiopia: 73.9 per 100 births), which was likely due to selection bias, question wording, and the use of lifetime abortions to measure transmission bias. Internal validity checks revealed problems with the NSUM application in Ethiopia. Unadjusted NSUM estimates of intrauterine device/implant use performed well compared to established external estimates, but adjusting for transmission bias again resulted in overestimation.

Conclusions: The NSUM resulted in overestimates of abortion incidence in Ethiopia and Uganda. We discuss several modifications that may improve future applications of the NSUM for measuring abortion.

Contribution: This is the first test of the NSUM to estimate national abortion incidence. Our findings highlight the critical need to assess the validity of abortion estimates, a key feature of the NSUM that is lacking in most other indirect abortion measurement methods.

First published on Demographic Research: December 16, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2020.43.56
Source / Available for Purchase
Full article available in Demographic Research

Share

Topic

Global

  • Abortion

Geography

  • Global
  • Africa: Ethiopia, Uganda
Guttmacher Institute

Center facts. Shape policy.
Advance sexual and reproductive rights.

Donate Now
Newsletter Signup  Contact Us 
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Footer

  • Privacy Policy
  • Accessibility Statement
© 2025 Guttmacher Institute. The Guttmacher Institute is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization under the tax identification number 13-2890727. Contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent allowable.