13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The incidence of abortion and unintended pregnancy in India, 2015

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Reliable information on the incidence of induced abortion in India is lacking. Official statistics and national surveys provide incomplete coverage. Since the early 2000s, medication abortion has become increasingly available, improving the way women obtain abortions. The aim of this study was to estimate the national incidence of abortion and unintended pregnancy for 2015.

          Methods

          National abortion incidence was estimated through three separate components: abortions (medication and surgical) in facilities (including private sector, public sector, and non-governmental organisations [NGOs]); medication abortions outside facilities; and abortions outside of facilities and with methods other than medication abortion. Facility-based abortions were estimated from the 2015 Health Facilities Survey of 4001 public and private health facilities in six Indian states (Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh) and from NGO clinic data. National medication abortion drug sales and distribution data were obtained from IMS Health and six principal NGOs (DKT International, Marie Stopes International, Population Services International, World Health Partners, Parivar Seva Santha, and Janani). We estimated the total number of abortions that are not medication abortions and are not obtained in a health facility setting through an indirect technique based on findings from community-based study findings in two states in 2009, with adjustments to account for the rapid increase in use of medication abortion since 2009. The total number of women of reproductive age and livebirth data were obtained from UN population data, and the proportion of births from unplanned pregnancies and data on contraceptive use and need were obtained from the 2015–16 National Family Health Survey-4.

          Findings

          We estimate that 15·6 million abortions (14·1 million–17·3 million) occurred in India in 2015. The abortion rate was 47·0 abortions (42·2–52·1) per 1000 women aged 15–49 years. 3·4 million abortions (22%) were obtained in health facilities, 11·5 million (73%) abortions were medication abortions done outside of health facilities, and 0·8 million (5%) abortions were done outside of health facilities using methods other than medication abortion. Overall, 12·7 million (81%) abortions were medication abortions, 2·2 million (14%) abortions were surgical, and 0·8 million (5%) abortions were done through other methods that were probably unsafe. We estimated 48·1 million pregnancies, a rate of 144·7 pregnancies per 1000 women aged 15–49 years, and a rate of 70·1 unintended pregnancies per 1000 women aged 15–49 years. Abortions accounted for one third of all pregnancies, and nearly half of pregnancies were unintended.

          Interpretation

          Health facilities can have a greater role in abortion service provision and provide quality care, including post-abortion contraception. Interventions are needed to expand access to abortion services through better equipping existing facilities, ensuring adequate and continuous supplies of medication abortion drugs, and by increasing the number of trained providers. In view of how many women rely on self-administration of medication abortion drugs, interventions are needed to provide women with accurate information on these drugs and follow-up care when needed. Research is needed to test interventions that improve knowledge and practice in providing medication abortion, and the Indian Government at the national and state level needs to prioritise improving policies and practice to increase access to comprehensive abortion care and quality contraceptive services that prevent unintended pregnancy.

          Funding

          Government of UK Department for International Development (until 2015), the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the Ford Foundation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Underreporting of induced and spontaneous abortion in the United States: an analysis of the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth.

          Underreporting of induced abortions in surveys is widespread, both in countries where the procedure is illegal or highly restricted and in those where it is legal. In this study, we find that fewer than one half of induced abortions performed in the United States in 1997-2001 (47 percent) were reported by women during face-to-face interviews in the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). Hispanic and black women and those with low income were among the least likely to report their experience of abortion. Women were also less likely to report abortions that occurred when they were in their 20s. Second-trimester abortions were more likely to be reported than first-trimester terminations. The levels of recent spontaneous abortion reported in the 2002 NSFG were consistent with the accumulated body of clinical research, although substantially more lifetime pregnancy losses were reported on self-administered surveys than in face-to-face interviews. Subsequent research should explore strategies to improve information collected on abortion, and, in the interim, research involving pregnancy outcomes should be adjusted for unreported induced abortions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001.

            Many pregnancies are unintended, particularly in certain population groups. Determining whether unintended pregnancy rates and disparities in rates between subgroups are changing may help policymakers target reproductive health services to those women most in need. To calculate rates of unintended pregnancy and related outcomes, data on pregnancy intendedness from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth were combined with birth, abortion and population data from federal, state and nongovernmental sources. In 2001, 49% of pregnancies in the United States were unintended. The unintended pregnancy rate was 51 per 1,000 women aged 15-44, meaning that 5% of this group had an unintended pregnancy. This level was unchanged from 1994. The rate of unintended pregnancy in 2001 was substantially above average among women aged 18-24, unmarried (particularly cohabiting) women, low-income women, women who had not completed high school and minority women. Between 1994 and 2001, the rate of unintended pregnancy declined among adolescents, college graduates and the wealthiest women, but increased among poor and less educated women. The abortion rate and the proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion among all women declined, while the unintended birth rate increased. Forty-eight percent of unintended conceptions in 2001 occurred during a month when contraceptives were used, compared with 51% in 1994. More research is needed to determine the factors underlying the disparities in unintended pregnancy rates by income and other characteristics. The findings may reflect a need for increased and more effective contraceptive use, particularly among high-risk groups.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Estimating induced abortion rates: a review.

              Legal abortions are authorized medical procedures, and as such, they are or can be recorded at the health facility where they are performed. The incidence of illegal, often unsafe, induced abortion has to be estimated, however. In the literature, no fewer than eight methods have been used to estimate the frequency of induced abortion: the "illegal abortion provider survey," the "complications statistics" approach, the "mortality statistics" approach, self-reporting techniques, prospective studies, the "residual" method, anonymous third party reports, and experts' estimates. This article describes the methodological requirements of each of these methods and discusses their biases. Empirical records for each method are reviewed, with particular attention paid to the contexts in which the method has been employed successfully. Finally, the choice of an appropriate method of estimation is discussed, depending on the context in which it is to be applied and on the goal of the estimation effort.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                101613665
                42402
                Lancet Glob Health
                Lancet Glob Health
                The Lancet. Global health
                2214-109X
                18 April 2018
                January 2018
                15 May 2018
                : 6
                : 1
                : e111-e120
                Affiliations
                Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, USA
                International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, India
                Population Council, New York, NY, USA
                Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, USA
                Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, USA
                International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, India
                Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, USA
                International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, India
                International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, India
                Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, USA
                Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, USA
                Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, USA
                is an independent consultant
                Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: Susheela Singh, Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY 10038, USA, ssingh@ 123456guttmacher.org
                Article
                NIHMS957972
                10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30453-9
                5953198
                29241602
                489ca0ab-71c4-4b20-be08-2afba2dfcec2

                This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article