Measuring Induced Abortion in Mexico

The authors compare four methods of collecting information on abortion through survey research to measure the levels of induced abortion in Mexico: face-to-face interview (FTF), audio computer-assisted self-interview (ACASI), self-administered questionnaire (SAQ), and a random-response technique (RRT). They tested all methods in three samples: (1) hospital patients in Mexico City, (2) rural women in Chiapas, and (3) women randomly chosen as part of a house-to-house survey in Mexico City. In each sample, RRT found the highest rate of attempted induced abortion in the hospital, rural, and household samples (21.7, 36.1, and 17.9 percent, respectively), followed by the SAQ (19.3, 10.1, and 10.8 percent, respectively). The ACASI and FTF interviews yielded fewer reported abortion attempts. The RRT seems the most promising methodology to measure the levels of induced abortion. With SAQ, detailed information was obtained, and the reported frequency rates were slightly lower than the RRT rates in urban areas.

[1]  Kerstin E. E. Schroder,et al.  Methodological challenges in research on sexual risk behavior: II. Accuracy of self-reports , 2003, Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

[2]  D. Billings,et al.  Attitudes towards abortion among medical trainees in Mexico City public hospitals , 2001 .

[3]  L R Muenz,et al.  Marijuana use among HIV-positive and high-risk adolescents: a comparison of self-report through audio computer-assisted self-administered interviewing and urinalysis. , 2000, American journal of epidemiology.

[4]  J. H. van de Wijgert,et al.  Is audio computer-assisted self-interviewing a feasible method of surveying in Zimbabwe? , 2000, International journal of epidemiology.

[5]  M. Carey,et al.  Self-Administered Questionnaires versus Face-to-Face Interviews in Assessing Sexual Behavior in Young Women , 2000, Archives of sexual behavior.

[6]  J. Hox,et al.  A Comparison of Randomized Response, Computer-Assisted Self-Interview, and Face-to-Face Direct Questioning , 2000 .

[7]  M. Lamas,et al.  Abortion and politics in Mexico: ‘context is all’ , 2000, Reproductive health matters.

[8]  Ellie Lee.  Abortion in the developing world. , 2000 .

[9]  M. Sable.  Pregnancy intentions may not be a useful measure for research on maternal and child health outcomes. , 1999, Family planning perspectives.

[10]  J. Stanford,et al.  Are all contraceptive failures unintended pregnancies? Evidence from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. , 1999, Family planning perspectives.

[11]  David H. Martin,et al.  Application of computer-assisted interviews to sexual behavior research. , 1999, American journal of epidemiology.

[12]  Heather Miller,et al.  Audio-computer interviewing to measure risk behaviour for HIV among injecting drug users: a quasi-randomised trial , 1999, The Lancet.

[13]  F. Okonofua,et al.  Assessing the prevalence and determinants of unwanted pregnancy and induced abortion in Nigeria. , 1999, Studies in family planning.

[14]  Johannes A. Landsheer,et al.  Trust and Understanding, Two Psychological Aspects of Randomized Response , 1999 .

[15]  Susheela Singh,et al.  The incidence of abortion worldwide. , 1999, International family planning perspectives and digest.

[16]  Susheela Singh,et al.  The Incidence of Induced Abortion in Nigeria , 1998 .

[17]  S. Henshaw,et al.  A global review of laws on induced abortion, 1985-1997. , 1998, International family planning perspectives and digest.

[18]  S. M. Rogers,et al.  Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology. , 1998, Science.

[19]  J. Darroch,et al.  Measuring the extent of abortion underreporting in the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. , 1998, Family planning perspectives.

[20]  W. Mosher.  Design and operation of the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. , 1998, Family planning perspectives.

[21]  Susheela Singh,et al.  The relationship of abortion to trends in contraception and fertility in Brazil Colombia and Mexico. , 1997 .

[22]  K. Hill,et al.  Induced abortion in the developing world: indirect estimates. , 1996 .

[23]  D. Huntington,et al.  Survey questions for the measurement of induced abortion. , 1996, Studies in family planning.

[24]  R. Magnani,et al.  Detecting induced abortions from reports of pregnancy terminations in DHS calendar data. , 1996, Studies in family planning.

[25]  L. M. Langer,et al.  Improving estimates of prevalence rates of sensitive behaviors: The randomized lists technique and consideration of self‐reported honesty , 1995 .

[26]  Susheela Singh,et al.  Estimated Levels of Induced Abortion In Six Latin American Countries , 1994 .

[27]  A. S. G. Cervera.  La fecundidad no deseada en México , 1993 .

[28]  K. I. Reinis,et al.  The Impact of the Proximate Determinants of Fertility: Evaluating Bongaarts's and Hobcraft and Little's Methods of Estimation , 1992 .

[29]  M. Fisher,et al.  Substance use in a school-based clinic population: use of the randomized response technique to estimate prevalence. , 1992, The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine.

[30]  T. Makkai,et al.  Correcting for the underreporting of drug use in opinion surveys. , 1991, International Journal of the Addictions.

[31]  C. Mitchell Dayton,et al.  Covariate Randomized Response Models , 1988 .

[32]  A. Chaudhuri,et al.  Randomized Response: Theory and Techniques , 1987 .

[33]  A. Campbell.  Randomized response technique. , 1987, Science.

[34]  K. Soeken,et al.  Randomized Response Technique: Applications to Research on Rape , 1986 .

[35]  Paul E. Tracy,et al.  Measuring associations with randomized response , 1984 .

[36]  J. Bongaarts.  The fertility-inhibiting effects of the intermediate fertility variables. , 1982, Studies in family planning.

[37]  S. Tezcan,et al.  Prevalence and reporting of induced abortion in Turkey: two survey techniques. , 1981, Studies in family planning.

[38]  Max Elstein,et al.  Taking Chances: Abortion and the Decision not to Contracept , 1977 .

[39]  N. Bradburn,et al.  An Investigation of Interview Method, Threat and Response Distortion , 1976 .

[40]  W. R. Simmons,et al.  The Unrelated Question Randomized Response Model: Theoretical Framework , 1969 .

[41]  S L Warner,et al.  Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. , 1965, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[42]  Jstor.  Studies in family planning , 1963 .