IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dem/demres/v43y2020i56.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating abortion incidence using the network scale-up method

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth Sully

    (Guttmacher Institute)

  • Margaret Giorgio

    (Guttmacher Institute)

  • Selena Anjur-Dietrich

    (Johns Hopkins University)

Abstract

Background: A major challenge in abortion research is accurately measuring the incidence of induced abortion, particularly in restrictive settings. This study tests the network scale-up method (NSUM) to measure abortion incidence, which uses respondent social network data to estimates the size of hidden populations. Methods: Using NSUM modules added to the Ethiopia and Uganda 2018 Performance Monitoring for Action (PMA) community-based surveys, we compute NSUM abortion incidence ratios, and adjust these ratios to account for transmission bias. We conduct internal validity checks to assess the NSUM performance. Results: The unadjusted NSUM abortion ratios were likely underestimates (Uganda: 15.3 per 100 births, Ethiopia: 3.6 per 100 births). However, the transmission bias-adjusted NSUM abortion ratios grossly overestimated abortion (Uganda: 151.4 per 100 births, Ethiopia: 73.9 per 100 births), which was likely due to selection bias, question wording, and the use of lifetime abortions to measure transmission bias. Internal validity checks revealed problems with the NSUM application in Ethiopia. Unadjusted NSUM estimates of intrauterine device/implant use performed well compared to established external estimates, but adjusting for transmission bias again resulted in overestimation. Conclusions: The NSUM resulted in overestimates of abortion incidence in Ethiopia and Uganda. We discuss several modifications that may improve future applications of the NSUM for measuring abortion. Contribution: This is the first test of the NSUM to estimate national abortion incidence. Our findings highlight the critical need to assess the validity of abortion estimates, a key feature of the NSUM that is lacking in most other indirect abortion measurement methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth Sully & Margaret Giorgio & Selena Anjur-Dietrich, 2020. "Estimating abortion incidence using the network scale-up method," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 43(56), pages 1651-1684.
    • Handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:43:y:2020:i:56
    DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2020.43.56
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol43/56/43-56.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4054/DemRes.2020.43.56?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zheng, Tian & Salganik, Matthew J. & Gelman, Andrew, 2006. "How Many People Do You Know in Prison?: Using Overdispersion in Count Data to Estimate Social Structure in Networks," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 101, pages 409-423, June.
    2. McCormick, Tyler H. & Salganik, Matthew J. & Zheng, Tian, 2010. "How Many People Do You Know?: Efficiently Estimating Personal Network Size," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 105(489), pages 59-70.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Feehan, Dennis & Son, Vo Hai & Abdul-Quader, Abu, 2021. "Survey methods for estimating the size of weak-tie personal networks," SocArXiv z2t4p, Center for Open Science.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Feehan, Dennis & Son, Vo Hai & Abdul-Quader, Abu, 2021. "Survey methods for estimating the size of weak-tie personal networks," SocArXiv z2t4p, Center for Open Science.
    2. Áureo de Paula, 2015. "Econometrics of network models," CeMMAP working papers CWP52/15, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    3. Palmer, J. & Sorda, G. & Madlener, R., 2015. "Modeling the diffusion of residential photovoltaic systems in Italy: An agent-based simulation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 106-131.
    4. Nathaniel Josephs & Dennis M. Feehan & Forrest W. Crawford, 2024. "A Sample Size Formula for Network Scale-up Studies," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 53(3), pages 1252-1289, August.
    5. Áureo de Paula, 2020. "Econometric Models of Network Formation," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 775-799, August.
    6. Arun G. Chandrasekhar & Paul Goldsmith-Pinkham & Matthew O. Jackson & Samuel Thau, 2021. "Interacting regional policies in containing a disease," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118(19), pages 2021520118-, May.
    7. Robert Smith, 2008. "A Globalized Conflict: European Anti-Jewish Violence during the Second Intifada," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 135-180, April.
    8. Tyler H. McCormick & Tian Zheng, 2015. "Latent Surface Models for Networks Using Aggregated Relational Data," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 110(512), pages 1684-1695, December.
    9. Elizabeth Tighe & David Livert & Melissa Barnett & Leonard Saxe, 2010. "Cross-Survey Analysis to Estimate Low-Incidence Religious Groups," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 39(1), pages 56-82, August.
    10. Naomi F. Sugie, 2018. "Utilizing Smartphones to Study Disadvantaged and Hard-to-Reach Groups," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 47(3), pages 458-491, August.
    11. Silvia Snidero & Federica Zobec & Paola Berchialla & Roberto Corradetti & Dario Gregori, 2009. "Question Order and Interviewer Effects in CATI Scale-up Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 38(2), pages 287-305, November.
    12. Lee Sunghee & Suzer-Gurtekin Tuba & Wagner James & Valliant Richard, 2017. "Total Survey Error and Respondent Driven Sampling: Focus on Nonresponse and Measurement Errors in the Recruitment Process and the Network Size Reports and Implications for Inferences," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(2), pages 335-366, June.
    13. Aparajithan Venkateswaran & Jishnu Das & Tyler H. McCormick, 2023. "Feasible contact tracing," Papers 2312.05718, arXiv.org.
    14. DiPrete, Thomas A. & Gelman, Andrew & Teitler, Julien & Zheng, Tian & McCormick, Tyler, 2008. "Segregation in social networks based on acquaintanceship and trust," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Inequality and Social Integration SP I 2008-204, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    15. Antonio Cabrales & Antoni Calvó-Armengol & Yves Zenou, 2009. "Social Interactions and Spillovers: Incentives,Segregation and Topology," Working Papers 2009-06, FEDEA.
    16. Cabrales, Antonio & Calvó-Armengol, Antoni & Zenou, Yves, 2007. "Effort and synergies in network formation," UC3M Working papers. Economics we072515, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    17. Alex Carballo-Diéguez & Ivan Balan & Rubén Marone & María A Pando & Curtis Dolezal & Victoria Barreda & Cheng-Shiun Leu & María Mercedes Ávila, 2011. "Use of Respondent Driven Sampling (RDS) Generates a Very Diverse Sample of Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) in Buenos Aires, Argentina," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-8, November.
    18. John J. Donohue & Daniel E. Ho, 2007. "The Impact of Damage Caps on Malpractice Claims: Randomization Inference with Difference‐in‐Differences," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 69-102, March.
    19. Merli, M. Giovanna & Moody, James & Smith, Jeffrey & Li, Jing & Weir, Sharon & Chen, Xiangsheng, 2015. "Challenges to recruiting population representative samples of female sex workers in China using Respondent Driven Sampling," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 79-93.
    20. Hong, Harrison & Xu, Jiangmin, 2019. "Inferring latent social networks from stock holdings," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(2), pages 323-344.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    abortion; social network; indirect estimation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    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:dem:demres:v:43:y:2020:i:56. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Editorial Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.demogr.mpg.de/ .

    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.