CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 43Reproductive Health and ContraceptionSurvey Methodology and NonresponseMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions

Self-reports of induced abortion: an empathetic setting can improve the quality of data

Open access
Vibeke Rasch, H Muhammad, Ernest Urassa, Staffan Bergström·2000·American Journal of Public Health
DOI 10.2105/ajph.90.7.1141PMC PMC1446311
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives This study estimated the proportion of incomplete abortions that are induced in hospital-based settings in Tanzania. Methods A cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted in 2 phases at 3 hospitals in Tanzania. Phase 1 included 302 patients with a diagnosis of incomplete abortion, and phase 2 included 823 such patients. Results In phase 1, in which cases were classified by clinical criteria and information from the patient, 3.9% to 16.1% of the cases were classified as induced abortion. In phase 2, in which the structured interview was changed to an empathetic dialogue and previously used clinical criteria were omitted, 30.9% to 60.0% of the cases were classified as induced abortion. Conclusions An empathetic dialogue improves the quality of data collected among women with induced abortion.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2105/ajph.90.7.1141

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • An alternative and perhaps more trustworthy approach would be to identify women through an empathetic interview, which has proved to be an improvement of the clinical approach.

    “An alternative and perhaps more trustworthy approach would be to identify the women through an empathetic interview, which has proved to be an improvement of the clinical approach (54).”

    From Unsafe abortion and postabortion care - an overview (2011) · cites this paper as [54]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rasch, V., Muhammad, H., Urassa, E., & Bergström, S.
Affiliations
Odense University Hospital (DK)
ORCID
Vibeke Rasch
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Publisher
American Public Health Association
Published
2000-07-01
Volume
90
Issue
7
Pages
1141-1144
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
DOI
10.2105/ajph.90.7.1141
PMC
PMC1446311
OpenAlex
W1594480689
Cited by
43
References
0
Citations by year
2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Keywords
abortion, incomplete abortion, self-report, empathetic dialogue, data quality, clinical classification, Tanzania
MeSH terms
Abortion, Illegal, Abortion, Incomplete, Abortion, Induced, Cross-Sectional Studies, Data Collection, Empathy, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Pregnancy, Unwanted, Tanzania, Truth Disclosure

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