Heidi Moseson

Reducing under-reporting of stigmatized health events using the List Experiment: results from a randomized, population-based study of abortion in Liberia

BACKGROUND Direct measurement of sensitive health events is often limited by high levels of under-reporting due to stigma and concerns about privacy. Abortion in particular is notoriously difficult to measure. This study implements a novel method to estimate the cumulative lifetime incidence of induced abortion in Liberia. METHODS In a randomly selected sample of 3219 women ages 15–49 years in June 2013 in Liberia, we implemented the ‘Double List Experiment’. To measure abortion incidence, each woman was read two lists: (A) a list of non-sensitive items and (B) a list of correlated non-sensitive items with abortion added. The sensitive item, abortion, was randomly added to either List A or List B for each respondent. The respondent reported a simple count of the options on each list that she had experienced, without indicating which options. Difference in means calculations between the average counts for each list were then averaged to provide an estimate of the population proportion that has had an abortion. RESULTS The list experiment estimates that 32% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.29-0.34) of respondents surveyed had ever had an abortion (26% of women in urban areas, and 36% of women in rural areas, P-value for difference < 0.001), with a 95% response rate. CONCLUSIONS The list experiment generated an estimate five times greater than the only previous representative estimate of abortion in Liberia, indicating the potential utility of this method to reduce under-reporting in the measurement of abortion. The method could be widely applied to measure other stigmatized health topics, including sexual behaviours, sexual assault or domestic violence.

Impact of interventions and the incidence of ebola virus disease in Liberia-implications for future epidemics.

To better understand the impact of national and global efforts to contain the Ebola virus disease epidemic of 2014–15 in Liberia, we provide a detailed timeline of the major interventions and relate them to the epidemic curve.  In addition to personal experience in the response, we systematically reviewed situation reports from the Liberian government, UN, CDC, WHO, UNICEF, IFRC, USAID, and local and international news reports to create the timeline. We extracted data on the timing and nature of activities and compared them to the timeline of the epidemic curve using the reproduction number—the estimate of the average number of new cases caused by a single case.  Interventions were organized around five major strategies, with the majority of resources directed to the creation of treatment beds. We conclude that no single intervention stopped the epidemic; rather, the interventions likely had reinforcing effects, and some were less likely than others to have made a major impact. We find that the epidemic’s turning coincided with a reorganization of the response in August–September 2014, the emergence of community leadership in control efforts, and changing beliefs and practices in the population. Ebola Treatment Units were important for Ebola treatment, but the vast majority of these treatment centre beds became available after the epidemic curve began declining. Similarly, the United Nations Mission for Ebola Emergency Response was launched after the epidemic curve had already turned.  These findings have significant policy implications for future epidemics and suggest that much of the decline in the epidemic curve was driven by critical behaviour changes within local communities, rather than by international efforts that came after the epidemic had turned. Future global interventions in epidemic response should focus on building community capabilities, strengthening local ownership, and dramatically reducing delays in the response.

‘How shall we survive’: a qualitative study of women’s experiences following denial of menstrual regulation (MR) services in Bangladesh

BackgroundAbout one quarter of women in Bangladesh are denied menstrual regulation (MR) due to advanced gestation [J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 41(3):161-163, 2015, Issues Brief (Alan Guttmacher Inst) (3):1-8, 2012]. Little is known about barriers to MR services, and whether women denied MR seek abortion elsewhere, self-induce, or continue the pregnancy.MethodsAfter obtaining authorization from four health facilities in Bangladesh, we recruited eligible and interested women in to the study and requested informed consent for study participation. We conducted in-depth interviews with 20 women denied MR from four facilities in four districts in Bangladesh. Interviews were translated and transcribed, and the transcripts were analyzed by two researchers through an iterative process using a qualitative content analysis approach.ResultsOf those interviewed, 12 women sought abortion elsewhere and eight of these women were successful; four women who sought subsequent services were denied again. Two of the eight women who subsequently terminated their pregnancies suffered from complications. None of the participants were aware of the legal gestational limit for government-approved MR services. Given that all participants were initially denied services because they were beyond the legal gestational limit for MR and there were no reported risks to any of the mothers’ health, we presume that the eight terminations performed subsequently were done illegally.ConclusionsBarriers to seeking safe MR services need to be addressed to reduce utilization of potentially unsafe alternative abortion services and to improve women’s health and well being in Bangladesh. Findings from this study indicate a need to raise awareness about legal MR services; provide information to women on where, how and when they can access these services; train more MR providers; improve the quality and safety of second trimester services; and strengthen campaigns to educate women about contraception and pregnancy risk throughout the reproductive lifespan to prevent unintended pregnancies.

The List Experiment for Measuring Abortion: What We Know and What We Need: The List Experiment for Measuring Abortion

Measuring abortion incidence and prevalence is often difficult because of under-reporting and other biases, complicated research designs, and other issues. Recently, family planning researchers have introduced a new method called the list experiment, adopted from political science and economics, to measure abortion. Three completed studies and at least four studies currently underway use this method to measure abortion in several countries. We discuss the lessons learned from completed studies, when the list experiment may and may not be appropriate, and open questions regarding the use of the list experiment for abortion research. This method has the potential to improve measures of abortion prevalence and incidence, which could translate to better-informed interventions to increase abortion access and reduce unmet need for family planning. Future research should further clarify the advantages and limitations of the list experiment for measuring abortion.

Multivariable regression analysis of list experiment data on abortion: results from a large, randomly-selected population based study in Liberia

BackgroundThe list experiment is a promising measurement tool for eliciting truthful responses to stigmatized or sensitive health behaviors. However, investigators may be hesitant to adopt the method due to previously untestable assumptions and the perceived inability to conduct multivariable analysis. With a recently developed statistical test that can detect the presence of a design effect – the absence of which is a central assumption of the list experiment method – we sought to test the validity of a list experiment conducted on self-reported abortion in Liberia. We also aim to introduce recently developed multivariable regression estimators for the analysis of list experiment data, to explore relationships between respondent characteristics and having had an abortion – an important component of understanding the experiences of women who have abortions.MethodsTo test the null hypothesis of no design effect in the Liberian list experiment data, we calculated the percentage of each respondent “type,” characterized by response to the control items, and compared these percentages across treatment and control groups with a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha criterion. We then implemented two least squares and two maximum likelihood models (four total), each representing different bias-variance trade-offs, to estimate the association between respondent characteristics and abortion.ResultsWe find no clear evidence of a design effect in list experiment data from Liberia (p = 0.18), affirming the first key assumption of the method. Multivariable analyses suggest a negative association between education and history of abortion. The retrospective nature of measuring lifetime experience of abortion, however, complicates interpretation of results, as the timing and safety of a respondent’s abortion may have influenced her ability to pursue an education.ConclusionOur work demonstrates that multivariable analyses, as well as statistical testing of a key design assumption, are possible with list experiment data, although with important limitations when considering lifetime measures. We outline how to implement this methodology with list experiment data in future research.

Estimation of maternal and neonatal mortality at the subnational level in Liberia

To establish representative local‐area baseline estimates of maternal and neonatal mortality using a novel adjusted sisterhood method.

Contraceptive Use over Five Years After Receipt Or Denial of Abortion Services: Contraceptive use over five years post-abortion

CONTEXT Nonuse and inconsistent use of contraceptives contribute to a high incidence of unintended pregnancy and abortion among U.S. women. Little is known, however, about how these outcomes shape womens subsequent contraceptive use and unintended pregnancy risk. METHODS Contraceptive use was examined among 880 participants in the Turnaway Study, a five-year longitudinal study of women who sought abortions at 30 U.S. facilities in 2008-2010. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic and multinomial regression models assessed differences in use by whether women received the abortion; results were used to calculate predicted percentages of women using each method. The main groups of interest were 415 women who had an abortion at a gestation near their facilitys limit and 160 who were denied abortion because they were beyond the limit, and who consequently gave birth. RESULTS During each of the approximately five years of follow-up, the predicted percentage using any contraceptive method was 86% among women who had the abortion and 81% among those denied it. Over the entire period, the former women were more likely than the latter to use any method (odds ratio, 1.8). However, they were less likely to rely on female sterilization, rather than no method (risk ratio, 0.5), and more likely to use barrier methods (1.7) or short-acting reversible contraceptives (2.6). CONCLUSION Womens elevated risk of unintended pregnancy after abortion is likely due at least partly to reliance on methods with relatively low effectiveness. Factors affecting contraceptive access postabortion, as well as individual characteristics such as fecundability, require research attention.

No one to turn to: low social support and the incidence of undesired pregnancy in the United States

OBJECTIVE Young women may experience social barriers to achieving their reproductive goals. This analysis explored whether low social support may contribute to the high incidence of undesired pregnancy in young women in the United States. STUDY DESIGN Using 6 months of data from a prospective cohort of 970 women ages 18-22 years in the United States, we described contraceptive use and applied multivariable logistic regression and standardization to estimate adjusted odds and absolute risk of undesired pregnancy among women reporting low social support versus higher social support. We investigated several measures of contraceptive use as possible explanations for this pathway. RESULTS Sixty-five pregnancies were reported in the 6 months of the study, of which 30 (46%) were classified as undesired prior to conception. Among young women who reported low social support, 8% reported an undesired pregnancy during the study period as compared to 3% of the young women who reported higher levels of social support. Among non-black women, those who reported low social support had nearly seven times the odds of an undesired pregnancy as compared to women who reported higher social support (aOR: 6.8, 95%CI: 1.7, 27.1). We found no association between social support and undesired pregnancy among young black women. Contraceptive method use differed by social support at baseline, and throughout follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Low social support - defined as the feeling of not having anyone to turn to - may be a risk factor for persistently high levels of undesired pregnancy among young women in the U.S. This association may be driven by differences in contraceptive use by level of social support. IMPLICATIONS Interventions to increase young womens perceptions of social support may reduce the risk of undesired pregnancy for some individuals.