IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0053346.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Unsafe Abortion-Related Mortality: A Systematic Review of the Existing Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Caitlin Gerdts
  • Divya Vohra
  • Jennifer Ahern

Abstract

Background: The WHO estimates that 13% of maternal mortality is due to unsafe abortion, but challenges with measurement and data quality persist. To our knowledge, no systematic assessment of the validity of studies reporting estimates of abortion-related mortality exists. Study Design: To be included in this study, articles had to meet the following criteria: (1) published between September 1st, 2000-December 1st, 2011; (2) utilized data from a country where abortion is “considered unsafe”; (3) specified and enumerated causes of maternal death including “abortion”; (4) enumerated ≥100 maternal deaths; (5) a quantitative research study; (6) published in a peer-reviewed journal. Results: 7,438 articles were initially identified. Thirty-six studies were ultimately included. Overall, studies rated “Very Good” found the highest estimates of abortion related mortality (median 16%, range 1–27.4%). Studies rated “Very Poor” found the lowest overall proportion of abortion related deaths (median: 2%, range 1.3–9.4%). Conclusions: Improvements in the quality of data collection would facilitate better understanding global abortion-related mortality. Until improved data exist, better reporting of study procedures and standardization of the definition of abortion and abortion-related mortality should be encouraged.

Suggested Citation

  • Caitlin Gerdts & Divya Vohra & Jennifer Ahern, 2013. "Measuring Unsafe Abortion-Related Mortality: A Systematic Review of the Existing Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0053346
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053346
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0053346
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0053346&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0053346?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0053346. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.