CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 75Reproductive Health and ContraceptionInternational Human Rights and Reproductive LawDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences

Estimates of Induced Abortion in Mexico: What's Changed Between 1990 and 2006?

Open access
Juarez, Fatima, Singh, Susheela, Garcia, Sandra G., Olavarrieta, Claudia Diaz·2008·International Family Planning Perspectives
DOI 10.1363/3415808
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CONTEXT: In Mexico, where abortion remains largely illegal and clandestine, reliable data on induced abortion and related morbidity are critical for informing policies and programs. The only available national estimate of abortion is for 1990, and demographic and socioeconomic changes since then have likely affected abortion incidence. METHODS: This study used official statistics on women treated for abortion-related complications in public hospitals in 2006 and data from a survey of informed health professionals. Indirect estimation techniques were used to calculate national and regional abortion measures, which were compared with 1990 estimates. RESULTS: In 2006, an estimated 150,000 women were treated for induced abortion complications in public-sector hospitals, and one in every 5.8 women having an induced abortion were estimated to have received such treatment. The estimated total number of induced abortions in 2006 was 875,000, and the abortion rate was 33 per 1,000 women aged 15-44. Between 1990 and 2006, the abortion rate increased by 33% (from a rate of 25). The severity of morbidity due to unsafe abortion declined (as seen in shorter hospital stays), but the annual rate of hospitalization did not-it was 5.4 per 1,000 women in 1990 and 5.7 in 2006. The abortion rate was similar to the national average in three regions (34-36), but substantially lower in one (25 in the South/East region). CONCLUSIONS: Clandestine abortion continues to negatively affect women's health in Mexico. Recommended responses include broadening the legal criteria for abortion throughout Mexico, improving contraceptive and postabortion services, and expanding training in the provision of safe abortion, including medical abortion.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1363/3415808

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In Mexico, the abortion rate was 33 per 1000 women in 2006.

    “For example, in Mexico, where abortion is only legally available to preserve physical health, the abortion rate was 33 in 2006 (8).”

    From Unsafe abortion and postabortion care - an overview (2011) · cites this paper as [8]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Grimes DA et al., Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic, Lancet, 2006, 368(9550):1908-1919.
  2. Singh S, Hospital admissions resulting from unsafe abortion: esti- mates from 13 developing countries, Lancet, 2006, 368(9550): 1887-1892.
  3. Johnson BR et al., Costs and resource utilization for the treatment of incomplete abortion in Kenya and Mexico, Social Science & Medicine, 1993, 36(11):1443-1453.
  4. Sedgh G et al., Induced abortion: estimated rates and trends world- wide, Lancet, 2007, 370(9595):1338-1345.
  5. Singh S, Prada E and Kestler E, Induced abortion and unintended pregnancy in Guatemala, International Family Planning Perspectives, 2006, 32(3):136-145.
  6. Chambers VM, Abordando la calidad de atención del aborto y la planificación familiar post-aborto, in: Maternidad sin Riesgos en México, Mexico City: Comité Promotor de la Iniciativa por una Maternidad sin Riesgos en México, 1994, pp. 167-176.
  7. Healy J, Otsea K and Benson J, Counting abortions so that abor- tion counts: indicators for monitoring the availability and use of abor- tion care services, International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 2006, 95(2):209-220.
  8. Rossier C, Estimating induced abortion rates: a review, Studies in Family Planning, 2003, 34(2):87-102.
  9. Núñez L, El aborto en México y líneas de investigación para su es- tudio, paper presented at the IUSSP General Conference, Tours, France, July 18-23, 2005.
  10. Lara D et al., The measure of induced abortion levels in Mexico using random response technique, Sociological Methods and Research, 2006, 35(2):279-301.
  11. Singh S and Wulf D, Estimated levels of induced abortion in six Latin American countries, International Family Planning Perspectives, 1994, 20(1):4-13.
  12. Sathar Z, Singh S and Fikree FF, Estimating the incidence of abor- tion in Pakistan, Studies in Family Planning, 2007, 38(1):11-22.
  13. Juarez F et al., The incidence of induced abortion in the Philippines: current levels and recent trends, International Family Planning Perspectives, 2005, 31(3):140-149.
  14. Singh S, Prada E and Mirembe KF, The incidence of induced abor- tion in Uganda, International Family Planning Perspectives, 2005, 31(4):183-191.
  15. Henshaw S et al., The incidence of induced abortion in Nigeria, International Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 24(4):156-164. Volume 34, Number 4, December 2008 Cuernavaca, Mexico: Centro Regional de Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2005.
  16. Lamas M and Bissell S, Abortion and politics in Mexico: "context is all," Reproductive Health Matters, 2000, 8(16):10-23.
  17. Taracena R, Social actors and discourse on abortion in the Mexican press: the Paulina case, Reproductive Health Matters, 2002, 10(19):103- 110.
  18. Solo J et al., Creating linkages between incomplete abortion treat- ment and family planning services in Kenya, Studies in Family Planning, 1999, 30(1):17-27.
  19. Benson J and Billings D, Postabortion care in Latin America: poli- cy and service recommendations from a decade of operations research, Health Policy and Planning, 2005, 20(3):158-166.
  20. Johnson BR et al., Reducing unplanned pregnancy and abortion in Zimbabwe through postabortion contraception, Studies in Family Planning, 2002, 33(2):195-202.
  21. Welti C, Las encuestas nacionales de fecundidad en México y la aparición de la fecundidad adolescente como tema de investigación, Papeles de Población, 2006, 12(50):253-275.
  22. Juarez F and Gayet C, Salud sexual y reproductiva de los adoles- centes en México: un nuevo marco de análisis para la evaluación y dis- eño de políticas, Papeles de Población, 2005, 11(45):177-219.
  23. Malina RM et al., Secular change in age at menarche in rural Oaxaca, southern Mexico: 1968-2000, Annals of Human Biology, 2004, 31(6):634-646.
  24. Pick S et al., Pharmacists and market herb vendors: abortifacient providers in Mexico City, in: Mundigo A and Indriso C, eds., Abortion in the Developing World, London: Zed Books, 1999, pp. 293-310.
  25. Clark W, Shannon C and Winikoff B, Misoprostol for uterine evac- uation in induced abortion and pregnancy failure, Expert Review of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2007, 2(1):67-108.
  26. Bongaarts J and Potter R, Fertility, Biology and Behavior, New York: Academic Press, 1983.
  27. Menkes C and Suárez L, Sexualidad y embarazo adolescente en México, Papeles de Población, 2003, 9(35):233-262.
  28. Mendoza D, Planificación familiar: logros en la última década y retos futuros, in: Hoekman A, ed., La Situación Demográfica de México, 2006, Mexico City: CONAPO, 2007, pp. 49-64.
  29. Paxman J et al., The clandestine epidemic: the practice of unsafe abortion in Latin America, Studies in Family Planning, 1993, 24(4):205-226.
  30. Amuchástegui A and Rivas M, Clandestine abortion in Mexico: a question of mental as well as physical health, Reproductive Health Matters, 2002, 10(19):95-102.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Juarez, F., Singh, S., Garcia, S. G., & Olavarrieta, C. D.
ORCID
Singh, Susheela
Venue
International Family Planning Perspectives
Publisher
Guttmacher Institute
Published
2008-12
Volume
34
Issue
04
Pages
158-168
ISSN
0190-3187 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1363/3415808
OpenAlex
W4242675449
Cited by
75
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 13
FWCI
8.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Family Planning Perspectives (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Human Rights and Reproductive Law
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Demographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Keywords
abortion, abortion rates, Mexico, reproductive health
MeSH terms
Abortion, Illegal, Abortion, Criminal, Abortion, Induced, Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Mexico, Middle Aged, Morbidity, Pregnancy, Incidence, 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