CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20Reproductive Health and ContraceptionGlobal Maternal and Child HealthInternational Human Rights and Reproductive Law

Choosing early pregnancy termination methods in Urban Mozambique

Mitchell, Ellen M.H., Kwizera, Amata, Usta, Momade, Gebreselassie, Hailemichael·2010·Social Science & Medicine
DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.03.025
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Little is known about who chooses medication abortion with misoprostol and why. Women seeking early abortion in 5 public hospitals in Maputo, Mozambique were recruited in 2005 and 2006 to explore decision-making strategies, method preferences and experiences with misoprostol and vacuum aspiration for early abortion. Client screenings (n=1799), structured clinical surveys (n=837), in-depth exit interviews (n=70), and nurse focus groups (n=2) were conducted. Triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data revealed seemingly contradictory findings. Choice of method reflected women's heightened concerns about privacy, pain, quality of home support, HIV infection risk, sexuality, and safety of research participation. Urban Mozambican women are highly motivated to find early pregnancy termination techniques that they deem socially and clinically low-risk. Although 42% found vaginal misoprostol self-administration challenging and 25% delayed care for over a week to amass funds for user fees, almost all (96%) reported adequate preparation and comfort with home management. Women reported satisfaction with all methods and quality of care, even if the initial method failed or pain management or postabortion contraception were not offered. A more nuanced understanding of what women value most can yield service delivery models that are responsive and effective in reducing maternal death and disability from unsafe abortion.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.03.025

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cited works that were retracted

Works this paper cites that were later retracted, from the retraction notices publishers deposit. Major when the notice came out before this paper was published.

  • Cites a retracted work: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.01.018

    Info

    The cited work was retracted on 2025-12-08 (notice 10.1002/ijgo.70737), not before this paper was published (2010-07).

    Cited work 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.01.018 · retracted 2025-12-08 · notice 10.1002/ijgo.70737 · this paper published 2010-07

1 of 1

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mitchell, E. M. H., Kwizera, A., Usta, M., & Gebreselassie, H.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Mitchell, Ellen M.H.
ORCID
Mitchell, Ellen M.H.
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-07
Volume
71
Issue
1
Pages
62-70
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.03.025
OpenAlex
W2150002275
Semantic Scholar
b1ecb0aab3f2b6604988fb90d0054896b5da4d8e
Cited by
20
References
49
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Human Rights and Reproductive Law
Keywords
early pregnancy termination, abortion pills, misoprostol, vacuum aspiration, women's decision-making, abortion access, user fees, HIV risk, post-abortion contraception, post-abortion care, unsafe abortion, Maputo, Mozambique
MeSH terms
Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal, Abortion, Induced, Adolescent, Adult, Choice Behavior, Female, Hospitals, Public, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Middle Aged, Mozambique, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Self Administration, Urban Population, Vacuum Curettage, Misoprostol, Patient Satisfaction, Focus Groups, Qualitative Research, Pregnant People, Pregnant Women, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review