http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4891-0997
Figures
Abstract
Objectives
This study aimed to assess the association between perceived social support and induced abortion among young women in Lima, Peru. In addition, prevalence and incidence of induced abortion was estimated.
Methods/Principal findings
A cross-sectional study enrolling women aged 18–25 years from maternal health centers in Southern Lima, Peru, was conducted. Induced abortion was defined as the difference between the total number of pregnancies ended in abortion and the number of spontaneous abortions; whereas perceived social support was assessed using the DUKE-UNC scale. Prevalence and incidence of induced abortion (per 100 person-years risk) was estimated, and the association of interest was evaluated using Poisson regression models with robust variance. A total of 298 women were enrolled, mean age 21.7 (± 2.2) years. Low levels of social support were found in 43.6% (95%CI 38.0%–49.3%), and 17.4% (95%CI: 13.1%– 21.8%) women reported at least one induced abortion. The incidence of induced abortion was 2.37 (95%CI: 1.81–3.11) per 100 person-years risk. The multivariable model showed evidence of the association between low perceived social support and induced abortion (RR = 1.94; 95%CI: 1.14–3.30) after controlling for confounders.
Conclusions
There was evidence of an association between low perceived social support and induced abortion among women aged 18 to 25 years. Incidence of induced abortion was similar or even greater than rates of countries where abortion is legal. Strategies to increase social support and reduce induced abortion rates are needed.
Citation: Sánchez-Siancas LE, Rodríguez-Medina A, Piscoya A, Bernabe-Ortiz A (2018) Association between perceived social support and induced abortion: A study in maternal health centers in Lima, Peru. PLoS ONE 13(4): e0192764. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192764
Editor: Dongmei Li, University of Rochester, UNITED STATES
Received: September 7, 2016; Accepted: January 25, 2018; Published: April 12, 2018
Copyright: © 2018 Sánchez-Siancas et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the article and Supporting Information files. The minimal dataset is available now at Figshare: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5097697.v1.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work. AB-O is a research training fellow in public health and tropical medicine funded by the Wellcome Trust (103994/Z/14/Z).
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), induced abortion is defined as the intentional termination of a pregnancy before the fetus can live independently [1]. Worldwide, every year, 35 abortions occurred per 1000 women aged 15 to 44 years, and around 56.3 million women sought for abortion between 2010 and 2014 [2].
In most developing countries, including Peru, abortion is illegal and clandestine; as a result, half of the induced abortions are unsafe, and 98% of the unsafe induced abortions are performed in this kind of countries [3]. Approximately 350,000 induced abortions are performed every year in Peru [4], and about 40% of the unsafe induced abortions are among women aged between 15 and 24 years [5], with a great impact and consequences on health.
Several factors may influence the decision of opting for an induced abortion. These factors include, but are not limited to, age [6], low levels of education [7, 8], marital status [9], age at first sexual intercourse and number of sexual partners [10], low socioeconomic status [7], poor family relationships [11, 12] and lack of social support [13]. Social support, defined as “the perception and authenticity that one is cared for, has assistance available from other people, and that one is part of a supportive social network” [14], is usually associated with a set of inter-personal relationships that facilitate functional and informative support related to person’s health and condition [15, 16].
Several studies have reported that abortion can be stigmatized by relatives and friends, regardless the abortion is legal or not [17–19], suggesting the lack of social support among those women. In Peru, a country where abortion is illegal as in other Latin American countries, there is limited information about the potential impact of social support and familial relationships on induced abortion among young women [11], suggesting that the lack of communication and confidence with the partner/parents were reasons to consider the option of an induced abortion.
Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the association between perceived social support and induced abortion among young women who were attended in maternal health centers in Southern Lima, Peru. In addition, the prevalence and incidence of induced abortion was estimated.
Materials and methods
Study design and setting
Cross-sectional study conducted in three maternal health centers (Ollantay, Manuel Barreto and Daniel Alcides Carrion) located in Southern Lima, part of the Directorate of Health II, in Peru.
Study population
Potential participants were women aged between 18 and 25 years, attended in at least one of the three aforementioned maternal health centers between March and May 2013. Study subjects were selected in consecutive order after verifying selection criteria. Illiterate women were excluded as questionnaires were self-applied. Incomplete questionnaires, i.e. those without variables of interest (i.e. abortion history and perceived social support), were also excluded from analysis.
Variables definition
The outcome of interest was the self-report of induced abortion. As induced abortion is a sensitive topic, this variable was calculated indirectly as proposed by Rosier [20], using two questions previously validated in a population-based survey [10]: “Have you ever had a pregnancy that ended in an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy? If so, how many?” and “Did you ever have an abortion that was spontaneous in the first three months of pregnancy? If so, how many?”. The number of induced abortions was estimated from the difference between the number of total abortions and of spontaneous abortions.
The main exposure was perceived social support, assessed using the DUKE-UNC scale, which has been previously validated in Spanish [21]. This tool contains 11 items with responses options ranging from 1 (much less than what I want) to 5 (much as I want) as a Likert scale. The score is calculated by adding up all the items of the tool (range from 11 to 55). Then, that score was split using a cut-off of 32: women with values <32 were categorized as having a low perceived social support, whereas those with score ≥32 were classified as appropriate social support.
Other variables included in the analysis were: maternal health center where women were attended and recruited (Ollantay, Manuel Barreto or Danien Alcides Carrion); age (<22 vs. ≥22 years); education level (< complete secondary, complete secondary, and superior); marital status (ever married vs. single); age of first sexual intercourse (<15 vs. ≥15 years); current number of living children (0–1, 2, 3 or more); and self-report use of contraceptive methods (no/yes).
Procedures
Initially, the day of visiting each specific maternal health center for participants’ enrollment was randomly selected. Before starting data collection, a screening questionnaire was applied to verify if potential participants accomplished selection criteria. Once a potential participant was identified, the study aims were explained to her, and then, informed consent was read. Questionnaires were self-applied to reduce desirability bias due to the sensitive nature of the questions regarding abortion.
The questionnaire was split in three sections: the first part included demographic characteristics of participants (age, education level, marital status, among others); the second part contained gynecologic and obstetric history as well as the questions regarding abortion; and finally, the third part included the scale of perceived social support. Responding the questionnaire took about 15 to 20 minutes.
Sample size
The sample size of the study was calculated using Power and Sample Size software (PASS 2008). With a two-sided significance level of 5% and a power of 80% for an association of two binary variables, a total of 270 participants were required to detect an association of 2.5 or more, assuming a prevalence of induced abortion among those with normal social support of 13.6% [10], and a total proportion of women with low social support of 65%. Since questionnaires were self-applied, a 10% of incomplete questionnaires were assumed; therefore, 297 women were needed to be contacted to conduct the study.
Statistical analysis
Information was double entered using Microsoft Excel for Windows, and then transferred to STATA version 12 (STATA Corp, College Station, TX, US) for analysis.
Initially, population characteristics were compared according to perceived social support and history of induced abortion using the Chi squared test. Then, the prevalence of low perceived social support as well as the prevalence and incidence of induced abortion and their respective 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were estimated using the exact binomial proportion method. The incidence of induced abortion was calculated by dividing the number of abortions by the number of person-years risk. Because all the women were sexually active, the number of person-years risk was estimated by resting the age of the first sexual intercourse from the age at the moment of the interview as has been reported elsewhere [10].
Finally, generalized linear models, assuming Poisson distribution utilizing the maximum likelihood estimation method, were used to determine the association between perceived social support and induced abortion, controlling for several confounders. Two different models were built to assess the potential impact of covariables in the association of interest. The first one included age, education level, marital status, and maternal health center as covariates; whilst the second one, included the variables of the first model plus current number of living children, age at first sexual intercourse and use of contraceptive methods. Robust standard errors were utilized to estimate relative risks (RR) and 95%CI as well as the population attributable fraction using the punaf command in STATA [22]. The population attributable fraction is the proportional reduction in population disease (or event) that would occur if exposure to a risk factor were reduced to an alternative ideal scenario (i.e. absence of exposure) [23].
Ethical aspects
The study and its informed consent were approved by the Ethical Committee of the Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas–UPC, in Lima, Peru. In addition, the study was approved by the directorate of each maternal health center. Verbal informed consent was utilized to guarantee appropriate confidentiality and anonymity.
Results
A total of 298 women were enrolled in the study, mean age 21.7 (± 2.2) years, 179 (60.1%) had incomplete secondary (<12 years of education), and 118 (39.6%) were single.
Prevalence of perceived social support
Low perceived social support was present in 43.6% (95%CI: 38.0%– 49.3%) of women. In the bivariable analysis, maternal health center was the only variable associated with low perceived social support. Detailed information regarding the population characteristics according to perceived social support is shown in Table 1.
Life prevalence of induced abortion
Among all women, 17.4% (95%CI: 13.1%– 21.8%) reported had having at least one induced abortion in their life. Among them, 41 (13.7%) reported one induced abortion, 9 (3.0%) reported two, and 2 (0.7%) reported three or more induced abortions. In bivariable analysis, maternal health center, marital status, age at first sexual intercourse, current number of living children, and perceived social support were associated with induced abortion (Table 2).
Incidence of induced abortion and its association with perceived social support
The incidence of induced abortion was 2.37 (95%CI: 1.81–3.11) per 100 person-years risk (Fig 1). Women with appropriate social support had lower incidence of induced abortion (1.47; 95%CI: 0.93–2.33) when compared to women with low social support (3.52; 95%CI: 2.51–4.93).
For comparison, the dashed vertical line indicates the rate incidence of induced abortion in countries where abortion is legal (USA, 2014 [24]).
In multivariable model, there was evidence of an association between low perceived social support and induced abortion (RR = 1.94; 95%CI: 1.14–3.30) after controlling for age, education level, marital status, maternal health center, current number of living children, age at first sexual intercourse, and current use of contraceptives (S1 Table). Accordingly, the population attributable fraction due to low social support was 31.7% (95%CI: 4.4% - 51.2%).
Discussion
Main findings
Our results show strong evidence of the association between perceived social support and induced abortion: low social support was associated with a twice increase of the incidence of induced abortion after controlling for potential confounders. Moreover, the population attributable fraction shows that increasing social support in this population would reduce in almost a third the number of cases of induced abortion. Additionally, almost a fifth of women aged between 18 and 25 years reported had having at least one induced abortion, a country where abortion is illegal and clandestine, whilst more than 40% of participants reported low levels of social support.
Perceived social support and induced abortion
Some manuscripts have reported that social support may influence the development of positive behaviors towards health and self-esteem, including the reduction of stress [25, 26]. Moreover, greater levels of social support improve quality of life as well as promoting physical and psychological well-being in women [27, 28], but also in the product. For example, having a supportive partner may reduce the experience of low birth weight in the product or have a pregnancy loss [29]. On the contrary, low levels of social support predispose to higher risk of disease, increase other adverse results and mortality [30, 31].
The results of our study are similar to previous reports evaluating the impact of social support on other diseases and other life events [27, 31], suggesting that appropriate social support is needed, even before pregnancy, to reduce the possibility of abortion. For example, a previous study found that greater perceived social support from relatives, partner and friends, was related to increased feelings of self-efficacy for coping with abortion [32]. Despite of being illegal and its potential negative consequences, inducing an abortion depends on different factors, with social support playing perhaps an important role. Therefore, further studies are needed to better understand how the decision of inducing an abortion is taken, with the ultimate goal of guarantying an appropriate social support.
Incidence of induced abortion
Rates of induced abortion found in this study are relatively high: an incidence of 2.4 per 100 person-years of risk in women aged 18 to 25 years is comparable to the annual rate of United Kingdom [33] and United States [34, 35]. As abortion is illegal, it is difficult to appropriately determine the real incidence of induced abortion in Peruvian settings. However, comparisons with other studies conducted in our context are possible. For example, Ferrando found an incidence of induced abortion of 5.2% among women aged between 15 and 49 years using clinical reports of abortion complications [4]. To compare this figure with our result, we applied an adjustment factor based on the proportion of women that are aged between 18 and 25 years from the total of women of 15 to 49 years (i.e. 40% according to the results of the 2007 census [36]. Thus, an adjusted incidence of 5.9% per year was obtained, which is higher than the incidence reported in the aforementioned study, but similar to the estimate of 6.1% reported in a population-based survey among women between 18 and 29 years [10]. Our findings, therefore, suggest that countries like Peru, where the abortion is illegal, may have at least the same (or even higher) abortion rates than countries where it is legal and safe [3, 24].
Low levels of perceived social support
About 40% of women enrolled in the study reported low levels of social support. Many reasons might explain these findings. For example, it is well known that family and relatives, especially the support of the father and partner, are important during the period of pregnancy and children growth [12, 17]. In addition, education level and socioeconomic status seem to be robustly associated with the perception of social support [8, 13], that can be the case as the women enrolled in this study lived in poor areas in Lima. Surprisingly, a previous study reported that women with unwanted pregnancy were demographically similar to those with wanted pregnancies, although the difference was focused on the psychological profile and maternal characteristics [37]. Thus, our study supports the need of a deep assessment of this kind of populations to appropriately suggest interventions to reduce induced abortion and increase social support. For example, the access to contraceptive methods may be limited if social support, mainly for their partners, is not present [38].
Public health relevance
There is a clear relationship between social support and incident cases of induced abortion as previously explained. Interventions need to focus on building an appropriate social support to reduce rates of induced abortion. However and most importantly, our results highlight the burden of induced abortions in resource-constrained settings such as Peru. According to that, there are some points that need to be pointed out. First, most induced abortions are clandestine and unsafe, which can have a great impact in women’s health and safety, as well as huge costs to a resource-constrained health system. Second, the high rates of induced abortion found in this study emphasize the lack of appropriate sexual education as well as the failure of adequately use of contraceptive methods. For example, previous studies have demonstrated that less than half of women in reproductive age reported using a contraceptive method during sexual intercourses [10]. Third, our finding underscores the high number of unwanted pregnancies in our study population. A previous study reported that a third of children were unwanted [4] and part of them were ended as abortions. Based on this, there is a need of improving sexual education, information and access to contraceptive methods, in addition to improve social support, to prevent clandestine and unsafe induced abortions.
Strengths and limitations
This study is one of the few reporting data regarding the prevalence and incidence of induced abortion in a country where it is illegal. However, this study has several limitations. First, the cross-sectional nature of the study design prevents us to determine directionality as reverse causality can be present. Second, although self-applied questionnaires were used, all studies about induced abortion have underreporting due to social desirability bias as well as potential stigmatization related to the legal concerns as this procedure is restricted. In addition, some recall bias might arise as several years might have lapsed between the event and the interview. However, we tried to reduce this bias by enrolling young women aged between 18 and 25 years. Third, a non probabilistic sampling technique was used to recruit participants; as a consequence, results might not be inferable to the general population. In addition, illiterate women were excluded from the study and this decision might have an impact on our estimates. Nevertheless, our findings are similar to previous studies conducted in our context [4, 10]. Fourth, the DUKE-UNC scale assesses perceived and not real social support, and this might affect our estimates. Finally, some confounders, especially socioeconomic status, were not assessed and hence, not included in the regression models with potential impact on our results. Nonetheless, our models were controlled by education level, a proxy of socioeconomic status [39]. As induced abortion might be present in all the socioeconomic groups, the potential effect of this variable may be small.
Conclusions
In conclusion, there was evidence of an association between low perceived social support and induced abortion among women aged between 18 and 25 years. The incidence of induced abortion was similar, o even greater, than rates of countries where abortion is legal. A great proportion of women reported low levels of social support. Appropriate strategies are needed to increase social support and reduce induced abortion rates in young women.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Association between perceived social support and induced abortion: Crude and adjusted models.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192764.s001
(DOC)
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank staff of the maternal health center for their support during the conduction of the study.
References
- 1.
World Health Organization. Spontaneous and induced abortion: Report of a WHO scientific group. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 1970.
- 2. Sedgh G, Bearak J, Singh S, Bankole A, Popinchalk A, Ganatra B, et al. Abortion incidence between 1990 and 2014: global, regional, and subregional levels and trends. Lancet 2016;388(10041):258–67. pmid:27179755
- 3.
Guttmacher Institute. Facts on Induced Abortion Worldwide. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2012.
- 4.
Ferrando D. El aborto clandestino en el Perú. Lima, Peru: Centro de la Mujer Peruana Flora Tristan; 2006.
- 5. Shah IH, Ahman E. Unsafe abortion differentials in 2008 by age and developing country region: high burden among young women. Reprod Health Matters 2012;20(39):169–73. pmid:22789095
- 6. Cabezas-Garcia E, Langer-Glass A, Alvarez-Vazquez L, Bustamante P. [Epidemiologic profile of induced abortion]. Salud Publica Mex 1998;40(3):265–71. pmid:9670788
- 7. Fusco CL, Silva Rde S, Andreoni S. Unsafe abortion: social determinants and health inequities in a vulnerable population in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Cad Saude Publica 2012;28(4):709–19. pmid:22488316
- 8. Pallikadavath S, Stones RW. Maternal and social factors associated with abortion in India: a population-based study. Int Fam Plan Perspect 2006;32(3):120–5. pmid:17015241
- 9. Wu S, Tian L, Xu F. Induced abortion and relevant factors among women seeking abortion in Nanjing, China. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2011;71(2):87–92. pmid:21150158
- 10. Bernabe-Ortiz A, White PJ, Carcamo CP, Hughes JP, Gonzales MA, Garcia PJ, et al. Clandestine induced abortion: prevalence, incidence and risk factors among women in a Latin American country. Cmaj 2009;180(3):298–304. pmid:19188628
- 11. Calderon J, Alzamora de los Godos U. Influencia de las relaciones familiares sobre el aborto provocado en adolescentes. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica 2006;23(4):247–52.
- 12. Svanemyr J, Sundby J. The social context of induced abortions among young couples in Cote d'Ivoire. Afr J Reprod Health 2007;11(2):13–23. pmid:20690284
- 13. Perez G, Ruiz-Munoz D, Gotsens M, Cases MC, Rodriguez-Sanz M. Social and economic inequalities in induced abortion in Spain as a function of individual and contextual factors. Eur J Public Health 2014;24(1):162–9. pmid:23902666
- 14. Lin N, Woelfel MW, Light SC. The buffering effect of social support subsequent to an important life event. J Health Soc Behav 1985;26(3):247–63. pmid:4067240
- 15. Bennett SJ, Perkins SM, Lane KA, Deer M, Brater DC, Murray MD. Social support and health-related quality of life in chronic heart failure patients. Qual Life Res 2001;10(8):671–82. pmid:11871588
- 16. Berard DM, Vandenkerkhof EG, Harrison M, Tranmer JE. Gender differences in the influence of social support on one-year changes in functional status in older patients with heart failure. Cardiol Res Pract 2012;2012:616372. pmid:22957296
- 17. Bingham A, Drake JK, Goodyear L, Gopinath CY, Kaufman A, Bhattarai S. The role of interpersonal communication in preventing unsafe abortion in communities: the dialogues for life project in Nepal. J Health Commun 2011;16(3):245–63. pmid:21128150
- 18. Harris LH, Debbink M, Martin L, Hassinger J. Dynamics of stigma in abortion work: findings from a pilot study of the Providers Share Workshop. Soc Sci Med 2011;73(7):1062–70. pmid:21856055
- 19. Norris A, Bessett D, Steinberg JR, Kavanaugh ML, De Zordo S, Becker D. Abortion stigma: a reconceptualization of constituents, causes, and consequences. Womens Health Issues 2011;21(3 Suppl):S49–54.
- 20. Rossier C. Estimating induced abortion rates: a review. Stud Fam Plann 2003;34(2):87–102. pmid:12889341
- 21. de la Revilla Ahumada L, Bailon E, de Dios Luna J, Delgado A, Prados MA, Fleitas L. [Validation of a functional social support scale for use in the family doctor's office]. Aten Primaria 1991;8(9):688–92. pmid:16989055
- 22. Newson RB. Attributable and unattributable risks and fractions and other scenario comparisons. Stata J 2013;13(4):672–98.
- 23.
World Health Organization. Health statistics and information systems: Metrics: Population Attributable Fraction (PAF). WHO; 2017 [updated 2017; cited 2017 December 18]; Available from: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/metrics_paf/en/.
- 24. Jones RK, Jerman J. Abortion Incidence and Service Availability In the United States, 2014. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2017;49(1):17–27. pmid:28094905
- 25. Campbell C, Skovdal M, Gibbs A. Creating social spaces to tackle AIDS-related stigma: reviewing the role of church groups in Sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS Behav 2011;15(6):1204–19. pmid:20668927
- 26.
Heaney CA, Israel BA. Social networks and social support. In: Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer NK, editors. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1997. p. 179–205.
- 27. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB. Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS Med 2010;7(7):e1000316. pmid:20668659
- 28. Rozanski A, Blumenthal JA, Davidson KW, Saab PG, Kubzansky L. The epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management of psychosocial risk factors in cardiac practice: the emerging field of behavioral cardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45(5):637–51. pmid:15734605
- 29. Shah MK, Gee RE, Theall KP. Partner support and impact on birth outcomes among teen pregnancies in the United States. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2014;27(1):14–9. pmid:24316120
- 30. Kuo C, Fitzgerald J, Operario D, Casale M. Social support disparities for caregivers of AIDS-orphaned children in South Africa. J Community Psychol 2012;40(6):631–44. pmid:22904575
- 31. Mookadam F, Arthur HM. Social support and its relationship to morbidity and mortality after acute myocardial infarction: systematic overview. Arch Intern Med 2004;164(14):1514–8. pmid:15277281
- 32. Major B, Cozzarelli C, Sciacchitano AM, Cooper ML, Testa M, Mueller PM. Perceived social support, self-efficacy, and adjustment to abortion. J Pers Soc Psychol 1990;59(3):452–63. pmid:2231279
- 33. Barrett A. Abortions reach highest ever number in England and Wales. Bmj 2005;331(7512):310.
- 34. Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Abortion incidence and services in the United States in 2000. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2003;35(1):6–15. pmid:12602752
- 35. Jones RK, Zolna MR, Henshaw SK, Finer LB. Abortion in the United States: incidence and access to services, 2005. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2008;40(1):6–16. pmid:18318867
- 36.
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica e Informatica. Censo Nacional 2007: XI de Poblacion y VI de Vivienda. Lima, Peru: INEI; 2007.
- 37. Maxson P, Miranda ML. Pregnancy intention, demographic differences, and psychosocial health. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2011;20(8):1215–23.
- 38. Balogun O, Adeniran A, Fawole A, Adesina K, Aboyeji A, Adeniran P. Effect of Male Partner's Support on Spousal Modern Contraception in a Low Resource Setting. Ethiop J Health Sci 2016;26(5):439–48. pmid:28446849
- 39. Howe LD, Galobardes B, Matijasevich A, Gordon D, Johnston D, Onwujekwe O, et al. Measuring socio-economic position for epidemiological studies in low- and middle-income countries: a methods of measurement in epidemiology paper. Int J Epidemiol 2012;41(3):871–86. pmid:22438428