MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153405162 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.071399

Clandestine induced abortion: prevalence, incidence and risk factors among women in a Latin American country

2009· article· en· W2153405162 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Antonio Bernabé‐Ortiz, Peter J White, César Cárcamo, James P. Hughes, Patricia García, Geoff P. Garnett, K. K. Holmes

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsAstraZeneca (Canada)
FundersFogarty International CenterNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthWellcome TrustMedical Research CouncilCenter for AIDS Research, University of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
KeywordsAbortionMedicineDemographyIncidence (geometry)Odds ratioConfidence intervalPopulationFamily planningGynecologyObstetricsPregnancyEnvironmental healthResearch methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clandestine induced abortions are a public health problem in many developing countries where access to abortion services is legally restricted. We estimated the prevalence and incidence of, and risk factors for, clandestine induced abortions in a Latin American country. METHODS: We conducted a large population-based survey of women aged 18-29 years in 20 cities in Peru. We asked questions about their history of spontaneous and induced abortions, using techniques to encourage disclosure. RESULTS: Of 8242 eligible women, 7992 (97.0%) agreed to participate. The prevalence of reported induced abortions was 11.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.9%-12.4%) among the 7962 women who participated in the survey. It was 13.6% (95% CI 12.8%-14.5%) among the 6559 women who reported having been sexually active. The annual incidence of induced abortion was 3.1% (95% CI 2.9%-3.3%) among the women who had ever been sexually active. In the multivariable analysis, risk factors for induced abortion were higher age at the time of the survey (odds ratio [OR] 1.11, 95% CI 1.07-1.15), lower age at first sexual intercourse (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.84-0.91), geographic region (highlands: OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.23-1.97; jungle: OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.41-2.31 [v. coastal region]), having children (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68-0.98), having more than 1 sexual partner in lifetime (2 partners: OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.23-2.09; > or = 3 partners: OR 2.79, 95% CI 2.12-3.67), and having 1 or more sexual partners in the year before the survey (1 partner: OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.01-1.72; > or = 2 partners: OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.14-2.02). Overall, 49.0% (95% CI 47.6%-50.3%) of the women who reported being currently sexually active were not using contraception. INTERPRETATION: The incidence of clandestine, potentially unsafe induced abortion in Peru is as high as or higher than the rates in many countries where induced abortion is legal and safe. The provision of contraception and safer-sex education to those who require it needs to be greatly improved and could potentially reduce the rate of induced abortion.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207