Skip to main content

Guttmacher Institute

Donate Now

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade Overturned
  • COVID-19 impact
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • U.S. policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • U.S.

Articles

  • Global research
  • U.S. research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Op-eds & external blogs

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • U.S.
  • U.S. State Laws and Policies

Data & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-Reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health

Global

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

U.S.

  • 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
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Donate stock or securites
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • Annual Report

Awards and Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship

Search form

Good reproductive health policy starts with credible research

 

Connect With Us

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • Email
Guttmacher Institute

Good reproductive health policy starts with credible research

 

Donate Now

Connect With Us

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • Email

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade Overturned
  • COVID-19 impact
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • U.S. policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • U.S.

Articles

  • Global research
  • U.S. research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Op-eds & external blogs

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • U.S.
  • U.S. State Laws and Policies

Data & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-Reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health

Global

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

U.S.

  • 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
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Donate stock or securites
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • Annual Report

Awards and Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship

Search form

Demographic Research
December 2020

Estimating abortion incidence using the network scale-up method

Elizabeth A. Sully,Guttmacher Institute
Margaret Giorgio,Guttmacher Institute
Selena Anjur-Dietrich,John Hopkins University
The time is now. Will you stand up for reproductive health and rights?
Donate Now
First published online: December 16, 2020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2020.43.56

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.

Full article available in Demographic Research
Printer-friendly version

Share

FacebookTwitterEmail

Topic

Global

  • Abortion

Geography

  • Global
  • Africa: Ethiopia, Uganda
Guttmacher Institute
Reproductive rights are under attack. Will you help us fight back with facts?
Donate Now
Follow Guttmacher:

Connect With Us

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn

Footer Menu

  • Privacy Policy
© 2022 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.

Get Our Updates