711
Views & Citations10
Likes & Shares
Context: Although pregnancy termination occurs in
every society, little research has tried to identify knowledge and attitudinal
factors that affect decisions to end pregnancies.
Objective: To examine the roles of information, monetary,
and psychic costs and likelihood of health consequences and the costs of
treating them as well as the decision-making process of pregnancy termination.
Methods: Using data from the Matlab Health and
Demographic Surveillance System (HDSS) to identify them, in 2010 we surveyed
women who were in reported in the HDSS to have terminated a pregnancy during
2007-2009 (n=451) and a random sample of women in the HDSS who in the same time
period had pregnancies that they did not terminate (n=1,201). We collected
information about their fertility desires and contraceptive use before their
index pregnancies as well as their knowledge about methods of pregnancy
termination and their costs and about perceived health and social risks of
these methods and costs to treat complications.
Results: Compared to those who did not terminate
their unintended pregnancies, women who terminated their pregnancies were more
knowledgeable about modern methods of termination and they reported lower
health risks, lower costs to treat complications, fewer social/familial
consequences for termination and were more likely to say that both the husband
and wife were involved in the decision-making process. Both groups of women with
unintended pregnancies had very high rates of contraceptive failure.
Conclusion: Women who terminated pregnancies associated
lower ‘costs’ than other women who had unintended pregnancies but chose not to
terminate them. Most unintended pregnancies were due to non-use of
contraception, discontinuation due to side effects or contraceptive failure.
Improvements in contraceptive practice can reduce rate of unintended pregnancy
and thus incidence of pregnancy termination.
Keywords: Induced
abortion, Pregnancy termination, Menstrual regulation, Contraception, Family
planning
BACKGROUND
Bangladesh
has achieved a remarkable success in reducing its fertility rate, considering
its socioeconomic disadvantages. The pace of fertility decline was
exceptionally rapid during the late 1980s and early 1990s - a decline of 54% in
the total fertility rate (TFR) in 20 years. The TFR was 2.3 children per woman
in 2014 [1]. The same as the average desired family size in 2007 [2]. Most
Bangladeshi women reach their desired family size by their mid-20s [2] and must
prevent unwanted pregnancy for upwards of 20 years of their reproductive lives.
Recent fertility surveys suggest that a quarter of pregnancies in Bangladesh
are either unwanted (15%) or mistimed (11%) [1].
Efficient, high-quality health and family
planning programs in developing countries aim to reach replacement-level
fertility[1] but with
minimal incidence of induced abortion. However, the overall pregnancy
termination rate in Bangladesh (37 per 1,000 women of childbearing age) is
higher than the average rate for South-central Asia (26 per 1,000) [3]; and the
incidence of unintended pregnancy is also higher in Bangladesh (74 per 1,000
women of childbearing age) than the average for South-central Asia (56 per
1,000) [4]. The 2014 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey reported an unmet
need[2] for
contraception of 12%, which is a decrease from 17% in 2007 [1,2]. One reason
for the relatively high levels of unwanted pregnancy and pregnancy termination
in Bangladesh is that Bangladeshi couples predominantly rely on short-acting
methods such as pills and traditional methods [1], which have high levels of
use-failure [5]. The contraceptive prevalence rate was 62% in 2014 [1][3]. Pill
use was 27%, injectable 12%, condoms 6%, and traditional methods 8%; all these
methods are relatively ineffective and have high discontinuation and thus
expose women to the risk of unintended pregnancy and thus pregnancy termination
[1]. In 2014, the use rate of long-acting reversible contraceptives and
permanent methods, which are highly effective methods and least likely to
expose women to the risk of unintended pregnancy, was only 8%.
Abortion is illegal in Bangladesh, except to
save the life of a pregnant woman. However, the government of Bangladesh
declared in 1978 that menstrual regulation (MR) is an ‘interim method of
establishing non-pregnancy’ for a woman at risk of being pregnant. MR, a fairly
safe pregnancy-termination procedure done by manual vacuum aspiration, is legal
if it is done by a trained provider within 10 weeks of conception without
clinical confirmation of pregnancy [6,7]. However, there are familial and
social concerns against MR or other forms of pregnancy termination, and costs
for services of MR and treating related complications are not affordable by
many women [8]. This leads to a relatively high incidence of use of other
methods of pregnancy termination, which have a much higher risk of maternal
mortality than MR [9-11].
A recent study of Matlab, Bangladesh,
provides a conceptual framework for thinking about influences on pregnancy
termination [12]. That study hypothesizes that pregnancy termination is
unlikely if the pregnancy is intended, but is possible if the woman does not
want to have more children or does not want a child at that time, and is more
likely when the ‘costs’ of an unintended pregnancy are higher. The ‘costs’ of
an unintended pregnancy are weighed against the information costs and perceived
monetary and psychic costs of pregnancy termination, as well as the possibility
of serious health consequences for women [13].
Multiple factors may intervene during the
decision-making process from unintended pregnancy to pregnancy termination,
making the process dynamic and situation specific. In India [14] and Vietnam
[15] it was found that husbands play a significant role in making the decision,
while for younger women in India [16] both husbands and mothers-in-law were
more likely to decide about pregnancy termination. Studies in Bangladesh
documented that the husband and wife are usually the final decision-makers [17,18];
however, neighbors, sisters-in-law, friends and, in some cases, health workers
provided informal support for those seeking abortion.
Though there have been a number of studies of
the influences of demographic and socioeconomic variables on the likelihood of
pregnancy termination [12], little attention has been given to the roles of
information, monetary, and psychic costs and of the likelihood of health
consequences and the costs of treating them as well as the decision-making
process of pregnancy termination. In this paper we report results from a survey
designed to address these issues.
DATA AND METHODS
Data for this study came from Matlab Upazila
(sub-district), where the International Centre for Diarrheal Disease Research
(icddr,b) has been maintaining the Health and Demographic Surveillance System
(HDSS) since 1966. Matlab is a rural area located about 55 km southeast of
Dhaka. Farming is the dominant occupation, except in a few villages where
fishing is the main means of livelihood [19]. Most of the farmers are in
marginal situations with less than two acres of land and 40% of them are
landless. Some people also work in mills and factories in different towns and
cities, but their family members live in the study area.
The Matlab HDSS area is divided into (a) the
government-served area, where only standard government-provided family planning
and health services are available; and (b) the icddr,b-served area, where
better reproductive health services are provided by the icddr,b. The HDSS has
collected data in both areas on the type and timing of pregnancy outcomes since
1966. These data are likely to be of high quality because they have been
collected during regular household visits (every two weeks until 1997, every
month between 1998 and 2006 and every two months since then) by carefully
trained community health workers who are well respected in the community. Since
1977, the outcome of each pregnancy has been recorded into four categories -
live birth, still birth, spontaneous miscarriage and induced miscarriage[4]. Since
1989 the method of induced miscarriage has also been recorded, and MR is one of
the methods reported. In this paper, we treat ‘induced miscarriage’ as
‘pregnancy termination’. Information
on socioeconomic characteristics (e.g. women’s education and household space),
demographic characteristics (e.g. age and gravidity) and desire for and timing
of next child is also available in the HDSS database.
We collected new data in September-December
2010 in both the icddr,b,b-served and government-served areas of Matlab from
women who had pregnancies during the period November 2007 to December 2009
recorded in the HDSS. We randomly selected a sample of 1,300 women who had
non-terminated pregnancies (out of 12,044 non-terminated pregnancies during the
study period) and successfully interviewed 1,201 of them. Of the total of 584
women who had terminated pregnancies during the same period, we interviewed
451. For both groups, non-responses occurred because selected respondents were not
found at home (after at least two visits). For the nine women who had more than
one pregnancy termination during the study period, we selected the most recent
one to be the index pregnancy. Of the 50 women who had more than one
non-terminated pregnancy, we chose the most recent one.
The survey was conducted by a team of six
college-graduate women with data-collection experience, overseen by an
experienced supervisor. Interviewers received a week-long extensive training on
the questionnaire, particularly on asking questions about sensitive topics. The
questionnaire was pre-tested, and the data were collected through paper
questionnaires. Through monitoring and quality control, the supervisor tried to
ensure the completeness of information in the survey (e.g. by re-interviewing
on some key variables for some of the sample). Before start of the interview,
respondents’ consent was taken and they were assured that responses would be
kept confidential and used only for research purposes.
From the HDSS record, some basic information,
including the names of the respondent, Bari (household cluster) and head of
household, and the date and outcome of the selected pregnancy, was given to the
interviewers for locating/identifying the respondents. To ascertain whether the
index pregnancy was intended or not, survey respondents were asked “Prior to
the pregnancy outcome just mentioned, did you want to have any (more) children?”
For those who wanted more, information on whether the child was wanted
immediately or after some time was taken from HDSS database[5]. The
question on timing of next pregnancy in HDSS was asked in two steps: (a) Do you
want to have any more children? (b) For those who said yes, they were asked “After
how long you want to have your next pregnancy?”
All survey respondents were asked about:
·
Contraceptive use prior to the
conception of the index pregnancy
·
Knowledge of methods of pregnancy
termination.
Women who terminated the index pregnancy were
told “Our record shows that you had a pregnancy termination on (date of
pregnancy termination). Now I would like to know some information about the
pregnancy termination.” The pregnancy termination-related questions were asked
about index pregnancies that were reported in HDSS as having been terminated,
while these questions were about perceptions for those who did not terminate
the index pregnancy. Respondents were asked about:
·
Complications
following termination
·
Costs to treat
complications and
·
Health risks
associated with pregnancy termination methods.
For pregnancies
that were unintended, whether terminated or not, respondents were asked
questions about their decision-making processes regarding terminating the
pregnancy vs. carrying it to term and the social and familial factors that
influenced this decision.
For some of the
analyses we compare women who terminated unintended pregnancies (n=451) and
those who did not terminate unintended pregnancies (n=357). Some of the
analyses of unintended pregnancies look separately at women who desired to stop
childbearing and those who wished to postpone it. We also present data on
intended pregnancies (n=844) for comparison purposes if the relevant survey
questions were asked about them.
RESULTS
Table 1 shows the distribution of women according to socio-demographic characteristics separately for those who terminated unintended pregnancies and those who did not terminate their unintended pregnancies, each separately by whether they wanted to stop or to postpone childbearing; it also shows data for women who had intended pregnancies. Of those who terminated unintended pregnancies, 91% wanted to stop childbearing. It is not surprising that the vast majority of those who terminated unintended pregnancies wanted to stop, but it is noteworthy that a non-negligible percentage (9%) wanted to have more children (but later). Of those who did not terminate pregnancies, 19% wanted to stop childbearing, 10% wanted to postpone it, and 71% had intended pregnancies. Hence, 29% of the pregnancies that were not terminated were unintended. Of those who did not terminate unintended pregnancies, 64% wanted to stop childbearing and 36% wanted to postpone it.
Both for those who terminated their
unintended pregnancies and those who did not terminate their unintended
pregnancies, the characteristics of women who desired to stop childbearing and
those who desired to postpone (Col. 1 vs. Col. 2 and Col. 3 vs. Col. 4) differ
significantly (p<0.01) for all variables considered except for religion and
area. Women who desired to stop and terminated (Col. 1) or desired to stop and
did not terminate (Col. 3) were considerably older, had more previous
pregnancies, had less education, and had more household space (a measure of
socioeconomic status) compared to the women who desired to postpone and
terminated (Col. 2) or who desired to postpone and did not terminate (Col. 4).
Women who desired to stop and terminated (Col. 1) are significantly (p<0.01)
older and had more pregnancies than women who desired to stop but did not
terminate (Col. 3), but these two subgroups do not differ significantly on
socioeconomic characteristics. Women who desired to postpone and terminated
(Col. 2) and women who desired to postpone and did not terminate (Col. 4) do
not differ significantly from each other for any variable except for area;
those who desired to postpone childbearing but did not terminate were more
likely to be from the icddr,b-service area where contraceptive use was higher
than government-service area. The characteristics of women who had intended
index pregnancies (Col. 5) are similar to those of women who wanted to postpone
but did not terminate (Col. 4); the only significant difference is for
religion: women who desired to postpone and had unintended pregnancies that
they did not terminate were more likely to be Muslim than those who had
intended pregnancies.
All respondents
were asked in our survey “Were you using any contraceptive method prior to the
conception of the index pregnancy?” If they did not use, they were asked the
reason. Table 2 shows data on contraceptive use and the reason for non-use
prior to conception of the index pregnancy separately for those who terminated unintended
pregnancies and those who did not terminate unintended pregnancies; we also
distinguish whether the women wanted to stop or postpone childbearing. (We do
not report data for intended pregnancies because less than 1% of those reported
use of contraception before the conception of the index pregnancy). None of the
41 terminators who wanted to postpone childbearing used contraception prior to
the conception of the index pregnancy. Among those with unintended pregnancies
(Col. 3 and Col. 6), the levels of contraceptive use prior to the conception
were similar (and did not differ significantly) for those who terminated the
index pregnancy (34.6%) and those who did not terminate the pregnancy (32.5%).
In fact, none of the differences in Table
2 between terminators and non-terminators and for each of these between those
who wanted to stop vs. postpone, are statistically significant. Nonetheless,
the magnitudes of the percentages are interesting. For example, it is noteworthy that the contraceptive use rate
was quite low in all groups shown in Table 2; i.e., most of the conceptions
that occurred were to women not using contraception. Users of contraception
were asked what method they were using. In both groups, the vast majority of
users were using temporary methods of contraception; for example, 74.4% of
users who terminated their unintended pregnancies and 72.4% of those who did
not terminate their unintended pregnancies had used pills or condoms.
In Table 2, for each variable we compared Cols. 1 and 2, Cols. 4
and 5, and Cols. 3 and 6. None of the differences were statistically
significant at 5% or better. Women who used
contraception prior to the conception of the index pregnancy were asked “Did
the conception occur while you were still using the method, or had you stopped
using the method before the conception?” The vast majority of unintended
pregnancies to those who had used contraception prior to the conception of the
index pregnancy were to women who reported that they were still using
contraception when they became pregnancy - i.e., the pregnancies were due to
contraceptive method failure; conception occurred while the method was in use
for 94% of those who terminated their pregnancies and 89% who did not terminate
their pregnancies.
Women who were
not using contraception prior to conception of the index pregnancy were asked “Why
were you not using contraception?” The most frequent response was a fear of
side effects (reported by 27.8% of terminators who did not use contraception
before the conception of the index pregnancy and 29.9% of non-terminators),
followed by the response that they could not get a suitable method (20.0% and
14.9%); 17% of terminators and 22% of non-terminators reported that they were
in postpartum amenorrhea or felt no need for contraception. None of these
differences between terminators and non-terminators are statistically significant.
Table 3 compares data on knowledge of methods of pregnancy termination and costs
and safety of those methods for (1) women who terminated unintended
pregnancies, (2) those who had unintended pregnancies that were not terminated,
and (3) those who had intended pregnancies. Survey respondents were asked (un-prompted)
“Do you know about any methods of pregnancy termination?” We have grouped the
responses into four categories: Manual vacuum aspiration/menstrual regulation
(MVA/MR), dilation and curettage (D&C)/wash[1], oral
medication[2] and
other. Women who terminated pregnancies were significantly more likely to know
about MVA/MR than women who did not terminate unintended pregnancies (74% vs.
34%; p<0.01), but they were significantly less likely to report knowing
about oral medicine (41% vs. 53%; p<0.01); the two groups were similar to
each other in knowing about D&C/wash (19% vs. 20%; not significant) and
about other methods of termination (11% vs. 10%; not significant). We see that
MVA/MR is the best-known method for those who terminated pregnancies, whereas
oral medicine is the best known method among women who did not terminate
unintended pregnancies. Women who had intended pregnancies were significantly
less likely to report knowledge of MVA/MR and other methods compared to those
who did not terminate unintended pregnancies, but knowledge is similar for
these two groups for D&C/wash and oral medicine.
For each method that the respondents reported,
they were asked “What is the cost of this method of pregnancy termination?” For
each of the four categories of methods, there are no significant differences in
method-specific costs among women who terminated pregnancies, those who did not
terminate unintended pregnancies, and those who had intended pregnancies,
though it is interesting that, except for D&C/wash, those who did not
terminate associated higher costs for each method than those who terminated.
For all three groups, the highest cost of termination was reported for D&C/wash
(about Taka 1,000[3]
about twice the cost of MVA/MR (about Taka 500)); while the reported average
costs of oral medicine were the lowest (Taka 130-160)[4].
Regarding the safety of pregnancy termination
methods, women were asked for each method they reported knowing: “How safe is
this method of pregnancy termination for a woman’s health?” The answers were recorded
into four categories. For this analysis we have categorized the answers into two
- ‘safe’ (very safe, mostly safe) and ‘not safe’ (somewhat unsafe and very
unsafe). Both among those who terminated their pregnancies and those who did
not terminate, few women think any of the methods of pregnancy termination are
safe. For example, 13.0% - 30.0% reported that MVA/MR, D&C/wash, or oral
medical termination is safe; respondents were even less likely to think that
‘other’ methods are safe (less than 8%). For MVA/MR, D&C/wash, and oral
medicine (but not ‘other’), a significantly higher (p<0.01) proportion of
those who terminated unintended pregnancies reported that the method of
pregnancy terminations is safe compared with those who did not terminate
unintended pregnancies. Of those who did not terminate pregnancies, the
responses about perceived safety are similar for those who had unintended
pregnancies and those who had intended pregnancies.
Table 4 shows data from survey responses
regarding complications due to pregnancy termination, costs of treating
complications, familial/social consequences, and decision-making processes for the
same three subgroups shown in Table 3.
Women who terminated their pregnancies were asked “Did you have any
complications following the pregnancy termination?” structured response
categories were (1) no complication, (2) minor complication, (3) serious complication
and (4) life-threatening complication. The responses have been categorized into
three: ‘Major (serious or life-threatening),’ ‘Minor’ and ‘No complication’.
Those who did not terminate their unintended pregnancies and those who had
intended pregnancies were asked “Do you think there would be some complications
following the termination of pregnancy?”; again responses are categorized into
major, minor, and no complications.
Table 4 shows that a substantially and
statistically significantly (p<0.01) lower percentage of women who
terminated unintended pregnancies reported that they had a major complication
following the procedure (19%) compared to the opinions about the likelihood of
a major complication among those who did not terminate pregnancies (90% for
unintended pregnancies and 89% for intended pregnancies). Of those who
terminated their unintended pregnancies, 11% reported that they experienced
minor complications; this is similar to the perceived likelihoods of minor
complications for women who did not terminate their pregnancies. Hence, 30% of
women who terminated their unintended pregnancies reported experiencing a
complication, whereas 99% of women with unintended pregnancies that were not
terminated and 98% of those with intended pregnancies thought that they would
experience a complication if they were to terminate a pregnancy.
All respondents were asked “Approximately how
much money would it cost for services to treat abortion-related complications?”
Women who terminated their pregnancies (the majority of whom did not experience
complications) reported significantly lower (p<0.01) costs to treat the
complications (an average of 2,280 taka) compared to the (perceived) costs
reported by those who did not terminate their pregnancies (3,706 taka for those
with unintended pregnancies and 3,491 taka for those with intended
pregnancies).
Regarding familial/social consequences, women
who terminated pregnancies were asked “Did you face any familial/social
consequences after you had the termination?” Women who did not terminate an
unintended pregnancy were asked “Do
you feel that you would have faced any familial/social consequences if you had
terminated the pregnancy?” Only seven percent of women who terminated their
unintended pregnancies reported that they faced familial/social consequences as
a result, while a dramatically higher (p<0.01) percentage (71%) of women who
did not terminate unintended pregnancies reported that they thought they would
have faced such consequences if they terminated the pregnancy.
Women who terminated their pregnancies were
asked: “Who made the decision to terminate the pregnancy?” Women who had
unintended pregnancies but did not terminate their unintended pregnancies were
asked “Who made the decision not to terminate but to continue the pregnancy?” A
significantly higher proportion of women who terminated their pregnancies
reported that both they and their husbands together made the decision compared
to those who had unintended pregnancies that they did not terminate (59.9% vs.
47.2%; p<0.01). The former group also had a significantly higher (p<0.01)
percentage of cases where the women themselves made the decision (23.5%
compared to 15.1% for the latter). Among those with unintended pregnancies,
husbands and other family members were significantly more likely to have made
the decision not to terminate than the decision to terminate. Very few women
with unintended pregnancies reported that health providers made the decision
about termination or non-termination, but it is significantly higher for the terminators
than the non-terminators (4.7% vs. 2.5%; p<0.01).
Women who had unintended pregnancies but did
not terminate them were asked “Why did you decide to carry the pregnancy to
term even though the pregnancy was unintended?” The most frequent response was
that women thought it was okay to have another child (29%), followed by
opposition from husband (24%), against religion (22%), concern about health
risks (13%), and opposition from a family member (11%).
MAIN FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSION
In the Matlab study area, 4.4% of pregnancies
were terminated in 2012 [20]; almost all of these pregnancies (91%) were to
women who wanted no more children. Of those who did not terminate their
pregnancies, 30% of the pregnancies were unintended (19% of the women wanted no
more and 11% wanted to space). Data from our survey shows that those who
terminated unwanted pregnancies were considerably older, and the pregnancies
they terminated were of considerably higher order than those who did not
terminate unwanted pregnancies; this is consistent with the notion that the
women who terminated associated higher ‘costs’ of having an unintended child.
Of women who wanted to postpone childbearing, there were no significant
differences by age, pregnancy, order and socioeconomic status between those who
terminated and those who did not terminate the pregnancy. However, those who desired to postpone childbearing but did
not terminate were more likely to be living in the icddr,b-service area, where
contraceptive use was higher and contraception more readily available than in
government-service area. This may be because women in the icddr,b-service area
had more confidence that they could stop
childbearing when they wanted to. We found that none of the 41 terminators who wanted to postpone childbearing
used contraception prior to the conception of the index pregnancy, suggesting
that these women did not feel strongly about preventing pregnancy before they
became pregnant, but changed their minds after they became pregnant.
Of women who terminated their pregnancies,
both husband and wife or the wife herself were more involved in making the
decision and the women reported facing fewer familial/social consequences for
termination compared with women who had unintended pregnancies that they did not
terminate. A similar finding - that the husband and wife are usually the final
decision-makers for pregnancy termination - was reported in earlier studies [17,18].
These findings also support recommendations others [21] have made that
counseling women with an unintended pregnancy needs to focus on the
decision-making networks of the women, since such networks influence the
ultimate fate of the pregnancy.
Compared to women who did not terminate
pregnancies, women who terminated their pregnancies were more knowledgeable
about modern methods of termination. In addition, terminators generally
reported lower costs of obtaining specific methods of termination than
non-terminators, though (perhaps because of small sample sizes) the differences
are not statistically significant. Women who terminated reported lower levels
of complications following the procedure, and lower costs to treat
complications compared to (the perceptions of) those who did not terminate
their pregnancies. The differences are particularly dramatic regarding
complications: 30% of women those who terminated their pregnancies reported
experiencing a complication, whereas almost all (99%) of those who did not
terminate unintended pregnancies thought that they would experience a
complication if they were to terminate a pregnancy.
LIMITATIONS
We recognize that
in some cases we are comparing perceptions with actual experience, and the two may
not be directly comparable. Nonetheless, we feel that such comparisons can be
illuminating. We do not know what the terminators’ perceptions were, or what
the non-terminators would have experienced had they chosen to terminate. It is
possible that women who terminated associated lower costs of terminating a
pregnancy, a lower likelihood of complications, a lower cost of treating
complications, and a lower probability of family repercussions than women who
do not terminate, and those are reasons why the former chose to terminate and
the latter did not. Alternatively it is possible that terminators originally
had perceptions similar to non-terminators but through their abortion
experience, they learnt that abortion is less costly and safer than generally
thought. If those who terminated pregnancies had the same perceptions as those
who did not, then we could conclude that those perceptions greatly
over-estimated the likelihood of complications. It seems unlikely that women
who did not terminate unintended pregnancies would experience such a much
higher likelihood of complications than those who did terminate, and hence seems
reasonable to conclude that they considerably overestimate the likelihood – a
misperception that could be addressed programmatically. Future research,
including longitudinal data collection, would be needed to distinguish between
these possibilities. One could then look at how perceptions affected future
termination decisions (though this would require a large sample, since
pregnancy termination is a relatively rare event).
Another limitation
of this research is that the data were collected in 2010. Since then, in 2012,
the Drug Administration for Bangladesh legalized the combination of
mifepristone and misoprostol for medical abortion. Knowledge, opinions, and
behavior may have changed as a result or in response to continued socioeconomic
development in Bangladesh. For all these reasons it would be very valuable to
conduct another survey like ours. Nonetheless, we believe that our basic
conclusion – that women who choose to terminate pregnancies associate lower
‘costs’ with doing so than women with unintended pregnancies who do not
terminate – is a general one that would continue to hold in other locations and
in current times.
IMPLICATIONS FOR
FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAMS
Only around one third of women who had
unintended pregnancies (whether terminated or not) were using contraception
before conception of the index pregnancy, mostly pills and condoms. Most of
these women (about 90%) reported that they were using the method when they
became pregnant, which implies a very high failure rate. This is consistent
with an earlier study [5] that found that temporary contraceptive methods have
a relatively high failure rate (15% within 12 months) and estimated that about
25% of births in Bangladesh were due to contraceptive failure. The 2014
Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey reported relatively high levels of
method failure of short-acting methods [1]. Similar to other studies [19], we
find that of those not using contraception prior to the unintended pregnancy,
about half said were not using it either due to side effects (experienced or
feared) or because they could not find a suitable contraceptive method. Unmet
need for contraception is still high in Bangladesh, 12% in 2014, indicating a
lack of accessibility to family planning services [1]. Singh et al. [10] showed
that there were 1.3 million abortions and menstrual regulations performed in
Bangladesh in 2010 - a very high level of pregnancy termination. Most of them
are likely to be associated with non-use of contraception, early method
discontinuation due to side effects, and contraceptive use failure. Under these
circumstances, improvements in contraceptive knowledge and method compliance,
increased access to and quality of contraceptive services in addressing unmet
need, method side effects and discontinuation along with promotion of
long-acting reversible contraceptives and permanent methods are important for
reducing the rate of unintended pregnancy and, with it, the incidence of
pregnancy termination.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was funded by World Health Organization (WHO). icddr,b acknowledges with gratitude the commitment of WHO for this research efforts. icddr,b is also grateful to the Government of Bangladesh for its long-term financial support and also to international core donors, Canada (Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development), Sweden (SIDA) and the United Kingdom (DFID).
[1]‘Replacement-level
fertility’ is the total fertility rate at which a population exactly replaces
itself from one generation to the next, without migration. This rate is roughly
2.1 children per woman for most countries.
[2]Women
with unmet needs are those who want to stop or delay childbearing but are not
using any method of contraception.
[3]The
contraceptive prevalence rate is the percentage of women of reproductive age
who are currently using, or whose sexual partner is currently using, a
contraceptive method.
[4]Prior to
1977 the HDSS data did not distinguish between induced and spontaneous
miscarriages.
[5]HDSS collects information on
desire for spacing and time of pregnancies every 18 months and we used such
information from HDSS because in our survey we did not ask this question of
women who intended having a pregnancy.
[1]‘Wash’ is a lay-person term that women in Bangladesh use to describe an MR, MVA or D&C done by trained providers at service facilities.
[2]‘Oral medication’ includes herbal potions and tablets. It may include ‘abortion pills’ (mifepristone and misoprostol), but these did not become legal in Bangladesh until 2012, two years after our survey.
[3]In 2010, US$ 1=75 taka; 1 taka=US$ 0.013.
[4]The low average cost reported for ‘oral medicine’ suggests that most respondents did not have in mind mifepristone and misoprostol.
1. Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (2014)
National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT) and Mitra
Associates and ICF International, 2016 Dhaka, Bangladesh and Rockville, MD,
USA.
2. Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (2007)
National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT). Mitra and
Associates and Macro International Dhaka, Bangladesh: NIPORT and Mitra
Associates and Calverton, MD, USA: Macro International.
3. Sedgh G, Singh S, Henshaw SK, Bankole A, Shah H, et
al. (2012) Induced abortion: Incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008.
Lancet 379: 625-632.
4. Singh S, Sedgh G, Hussain R (2010) Unwanted pregnancy
world-wide: Levels, trends and outcomes. Stud Fam Plann 41: 241-250.
5. Bairagi R, Rahman M (1996) Contraceptive failure in
Matlab, Bangladesh. Int Fam Plan Persp 22: 21-25.
6. Khan AR, Syeda
FB (1986) Induced abortion in rural Bangladesh. Stud Fam Plan 17: 95-99.
7. Dixon-Mueller R
(1988) Innovations in reproductive health care: Menstrual regulation policies
and programs in Bangladesh. Stud Fam Plann 19: 129-140.
8. Bhuiya A, Aziz A, Chowdhury M (1999) Induced abortion
in a rural area of Bangladesh: Process management and health consequences.
ICDDR,B Center for Population Health and Research.
9. Amin S (2003) Menstrual regulation in Bangladesh, in
Basu AM (ed.): The sociocultural and political aspects of abortion, Westport,
CT, USA. Praeger 153-166.
10. Singh S, Altaf
H, Isaac MZ, Hadayeat UB, Michael V, et al. (2012) The incidence of menstrual
regulation procedures and abortion in Bangladesh, 2010. Int Perspect Sex Reprod
Health 38: 122-132.
11. Rahman M, DaVanzo J, Razzaque A (2014) Pregnancy
termination in Matlab, Bangladesh: Maternal mortality associated with menstrual
regulation and abortion. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health 40: 108-118.
12. DaVanzo J, Rahman M, Ahmed S, Razzaque A (2013)
Influences on pregnancy termination decisions in Matlab, Bangladesh. Demography
50: 1739-6174.
13. Bhuiya A, Aziz A, Chowdhury M (2001) Ordeal of women
for induced abortion in a rural area of Bangladesh. J Health Popul Nutr 19:
281-290.
14. Sinha R, Khan
ME, Bella CP, Seema L, Payal K (1998) Decision making in acceptance and seeking
abortion of unwanted pregnancies, New Delhi, India: Centre for Operational
Research and Training.
15. Johansson A,
Nguyen TN, Tran QH, Doan DD, Kristina H (1998) Husbands' involvement in
abortion in Vietnam. Stud Fam Plann 29: 400-413.
16. Ganatra B, Hirve S (2002) Induced abortions among
adolescent women in rural Maharashtra, India. Reprod Health Matters 10: 76-85.
17. Ahmed S, Parveen AK, Islam A, Sadia DP, Farzana S, et
al. (1997) Induced abortion: Results from two rural areas of Bangladesh. MCH-FP
Extension Project (Rural), Health and Population Extension Project. ICDDR,B:
Dhaka, Bangladesh.
18. Khan ME, Dcosta S (2002) Menstrual regulation and
abortion in Bangladesh: Current status and future challenges. The National
Workshop on Abortion in Nepal: Post-legalization challenges: Experiences from
neighboring countries and strategies for Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
19. Razzaque A, Islam M, Alam N (1998) Contraception among
limiters and spacers in Matlab, Bangladesh. Asia Pac Popul J 13: 65-78.
20. ICDDR,B (2014) Health and demographic surveillance
system-Matlab. Registration of Health and Demographic Events 2012, Scientific
Report No. 124, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
21. Gage AJ (1998) Sexual activity and contraceptive use:
The components of the decision-making process. Stud Fam Plann 29: 154-166.
QUICK LINKS
- SUBMIT MANUSCRIPT
- RECOMMEND THE JOURNAL
-
SUBSCRIBE FOR ALERTS
RELATED JOURNALS
- Journal of Veterinary and Marine Sciences (ISSN: 2689-7830)
- Journal of Microbiology and Microbial Infections (ISSN: 2689-7660)
- Journal of Genomic Medicine and Pharmacogenomics (ISSN:2474-4670)
- Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine (ISSN:2641-6948)
- Journal of Astronomy and Space Research
- Food and Nutrition-Current Research (ISSN:2638-1095)
- Journal of Agriculture and Forest Meteorology Research (ISSN:2642-0449)