
==== Front
PLoS One
PLoS One
plos
PLOS ONE
1932-6203
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pone.0309913
PONE-D-23-24906
Research Article
Medicine and Health Sciences
Women's Health
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Termination of Pregnancy
Medicine and Health Sciences
Women's Health
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Contraception
Female Contraception
Medicine and Health Sciences
Women's Health
Maternal Health
Pregnancy
Medicine and Health Sciences
Women's Health
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Pregnancy
Medicine and Health Sciences
Epidemiology
Medical Risk Factors
Traumatic Injury Risk Factors
Violent Crime
Intimate Partner Violence
Medicine and Health Sciences
Public and Occupational Health
Traumatic Injury Risk Factors
Violent Crime
Intimate Partner Violence
Social Sciences
Sociology
Criminology
Crime
Violent Crime
Intimate Partner Violence
Engineering and Technology
Equipment
Communication Equipment
Cell Phones
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Socioeconomic Aspects of Health
Medicine and Health Sciences
Public and Occupational Health
Socioeconomic Aspects of Health
Medicine and Health Sciences
Pharmacology
Drugs
Contraceptives
Biology and Life Sciences
Bioengineering
Biotechnology
Medical Devices and Equipment
Contraceptives
Engineering and Technology
Bioengineering
Biotechnology
Medical Devices and Equipment
Contraceptives
Medicine and Health Sciences
Medical Devices and Equipment
Contraceptives
Medicine and Health Sciences
Epidemiology
Medical Risk Factors
Prevalence of pregnancy termination and associated factors among married women in Papua New Guinea: A nationally representative cross-sectional survey
Prevalence of pregnancy termination and associated factors among married women in Papua New Guinea
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5435-7054
Maviso McKenzie Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Methodology Software Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 *
Aines Paula Zebedee Methodology Validation Visualization Writing – review & editing 2
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7424-5330
Potjepat Gracelyn Validation Visualization Writing – review & editing 2
Geregl Nancy Writing – review & editing 3
Mola Glen Methodology Writing – review & editing 4
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1214-9817
Bolnga John W. Methodology Validation Visualization Writing – review & editing 5
1 Division of Public Health, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Papua New Guinea, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea
2 Division of Nursing, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Papua New Guinea, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea
3 School of Health Sciences, Pacific Adventist University, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea
4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Papua New Guinea, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea
5 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Modilon Hospital, Madang, Papua New Guinea
Buh Amos Editor
University of Ottawa, CANADA
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

* E-mail: mckenzie.maviso@upng.ac.pg
5 9 2024
2024
19 9 e030991313 8 2023
20 8 2024
© 2024 Maviso et al
2024
Maviso et al
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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.

Background

Pregnancy termination or induced abortion is not decriminalized, and access to safe abortion services is largely unavailable in Papua New Guinea (PNG). However, the practice is common throughout the country. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence and determine factors associated with pregnancy termination among married women aged 15–49 years in PNG.

Methods

Secondary data from the 2016–2018 PNG Demographic and Health Survey (PNGDHS) was used. A total weighted sample of 6,288 married women were included. The Complex Sample Analysis method was used to account for the cluster design and sample weight of the study. Chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression were used to assess factors associated with pregnancy termination. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) were reported.

Results

The prevalence of pregnancy termination was 5.3%. Nearly half (45.2%) of all pregnancy terminations occurred in the Highlands region. Women aged 35–44 years (aOR = 8.54; 95% CI: 1.61–45.26), not working (aOR = 6.17; 95% CI: 2.26–16.85), owned a mobile phone (aOR = 3.77; 95% CI: 1.60–8.84), and lived in urban areas (aOR = 5.66; 95% CI: 1.91–16.81) were more likely to terminate a pregnancy. Women who experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) were 2.27 times (aOR = 2.27; 95% CI: 1.17–4.41) more likely to terminate a pregnancy compared to those who did not experience IPV. Women with unplanned pregnancies were 6.23 times (aOR = 6.23; 95% CI: 2.61–14.87) more likely to terminate a pregnancy. Women who knew about modern contraceptive methods and made independent decisions for contraceptive use were 3.38 and 2.54 times (aOR = 3.38; 95% CI: 1.39–8.18 and aOR = 2.54; 95% CI: 1.18–5.45, respectively) more likely to terminate a pregnancy.

Conclusion

The findings highlight the role of sociodemographic and maternal factors in pregnancy termination among married women in PNG. Efforts aimed at reducing unplanned pregnancies and terminations should focus on comprehensive sexual and reproductive health education and improving easy access to contraceptives for married couples. Post-abortion care should also be integrated into the country’s legal framework and added as an important component of existing sexual and reproductive health services.

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Data AvailabilityPermission for accessing and analyzing the 2016–2018 PNGDHS data was obtained from the DHS Program. All data and DHS-related materials are available from the DHS team upon request at https://dhsprogram.com/.
Data Availability

Permission for accessing and analyzing the 2016–2018 PNGDHS data was obtained from the DHS Program. All data and DHS-related materials are available from the DHS team upon request at https://dhsprogram.com/.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

While every pregnancy sets a woman at risk of death, the vulnerability to disability and maternal mortality is greater among women whose pregnancies are terminated through induced abortions, miscarriages, or stillbirths than among those who have live births [1, 2]. Pregnancy termination, also known as induced abortion, is a medical or surgical intervention that involves removing a viable fetus, whereas spontaneous abortions (or miscarriages) occur when an embryo or fetus is lost due to natural causes [3]. In addition, induced abortion is permitted when there are compelling reasons, such as to save a woman’s life, prevent adverse physical and mental health outcomes, avoid pregnancy following rape or incest, prevent serious fetal anomalies, socioeconomic reasons, or upon a woman’s request [4–6]. Conversely, unsafe abortion is the termination of pregnancy performed by unskilled persons in an environment lacking primary medical and standard sanitary conditions, or both [7].

Recent global data showed that between 2015 and 2019, an estimated 121 million pregnancies that occurred were unintended [8]. Of these unintended pregnancies, 61% (73.3 million) resulted in abortion, consistent with a global abortion rate of 39 per 1,000 women aged 15–49 years [8]. An estimated 45% of all abortions are unsafe, and 97% occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) [4, 8]. Likewise, about 4.7–13.2% of all global maternal deaths each year are attributed to unsafe abortion [4, 9]. Disability and deaths associated with unsafe pregnancy termination persist as a public health burden, particularly in settings where health disparities are evident, and/or abortion laws are restrictive [8, 10, 11]. Similarly, in countries where patriarchal societies, cultural norms, religious beliefs, and economic factors influence women’s decisions, pregnancy termination is never easy [12–14]. The practice remains prevalent in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where women of reproductive age (15–49 years) have high rates of unmet contraceptive needs [8, 15]. On average, women in these countries have more pregnancies throughout their lifetime, and their risk of pregnancy-related disability and mortality remains higher than those living in high-income countries [8]. Unintended pregnancy can have substantial social, economic, psychological, and health consequences for women of reproductive age and their families [16–18].

Many countries still confront health challenges due to the complexity of abortion laws and poor abortion healthcare services, and even where abortions are legal, the policies are hindered by the practice or incoherence [11, 19]. Unsafe abortion has adverse health and economic implications for individuals and society [9, 20]. Studies have revealed that unintended pregnancy has substantial social, economic, psychological, and health consequences for women of reproductive age and their families [16–18]. An earlier World Health Organization (WHO) systematic analysis highlighted five primary complications that accounted for 75% of all pregnancy-related deaths, which include hemorrhage, infection, pre-eclampsia and eclampsia, birth complications, and unsafe abortion [9]. It can also be aggravated by specific predisposing co-morbidities such as obesity, asthma, diabetes, and hypertension in women with a higher risk of pregnancy termination [21–24].

Despite the high risk of disability and death, the choice to undergo a pregnancy termination is personal and may be affected by several circumstance-specific considerations and healthcare services. For instance, evidence from population-based surveys in LMICs revealed that demographic (e.g., age, marital status, parity, education), socioeconomic (e.g., employment), health risk behaviors (e.g., substance abuse, sexual activities), and sociocultural (e.g., gender norms, belief systems) factors are associated with pregnancy termination [10, 14, 25]. Previous experience with pregnancy termination, access to reproductive health services, and attitudes towards this practice have also been well documented [13, 25]. Along with adverse health and socioeconomic consequences, decision-making regarding pregnancy termination is problematic, notably where patriarchy, restricted abortion laws, cultural and religious beliefs, and economic factors may impact women’s decisions, especially in resource-constrained settings with already overloaded health systems [11].

In PNG, the risk of maternal and neonatal deaths due to pregnancy- and childbirth-related complications is disproportionately higher compared to other countries in the Western Pacific region [26, 27]. The maternal mortality ratio is estimated to be 215–545 deaths per 100,000 live births [26, 28]. Sepsis due to unsafe abortion is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality after hemorrhage in the country [27, 29]. Regarding contraceptive use, the country has a low prevalence rate for modern contraceptive methods among married women (31%), and a high unmet need for family planning (26%) [30].

While pregnancy termination or induced abortion for socioeconomic reasons or upon request is prohibited under PNG’s Criminal Code Act 1974 [31], it is performed by a professional medical practitioner under certain conditions; for example, if the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest, if continuing the pregnancy places a woman’s life or her physical or mental health at significant risk, or if the child may experience a severe physical abnormality or disease [31]. Nonetheless, this practice continues to be contested in the country, with vested interests from politically and religiously conservative spheres, patriarchal societies, and sociocultural belief systems [31, 32]. Moreover, the majority of women are unaware of the legal implications following pregnancy termination, especially illegal and unsafe abortion, which is known to be widely performed in the country [33–35]. Evidence from PNG sources suggests that many women of reproductive age (15–49 years) with unplanned pregnancies perform unsafe abortions, which may result in abortion-related morbidity and mortality [26, 29, 33, 36]. Previous reviews in the Eastern Highlands Province found that unsafe abortion infection accounted for 48% of maternal mortality [29], and 24% of women who sought post-abortion care were due to unsafe abortions [35]. Another study in Madang found that more than three-quarters (76.5%) of abortion-related admissions were due to continuous bleeding following an induced abortion [37]. Pregnancy-related complications, including unsafe abortion practices, contribute to the country’s poor maternal health indicators.

Considering the morbidity and mortality associated with the complications of pregnancy terminations, particularly unsafe abortions in PNG, it is imperative to fully understand the prevalence and associated factors to adequately address this issue. Although a few studies have determined the factors associated with pregnancy termination, country-level estimates of the prevalence and their determinants are largely undetermined, affecting a significant proportion of women in the reproductive age group [14]. Therefore, this study aimed to estimate the prevalence and determine factors associated with pregnancy termination among married women aged 15–49 in PNG. This could encourage program planning and policy development to establish a well-defined legal framework for implementing abortion services in the country.

Materials and methods

Study setting

This study used secondary data from the PNG Demographic and Health Survey (PNGDHS), a nationally representative population-based survey conducted across the four major administrative regions (Southern, Highlands, Momase, and Islands) from October 2016 to December 2018.

Study design and data source

Data were drawn from the PNGDHS 2016–2018, conducted every five years, employing a stratified two-stage cluster sampling design. In the first stage, census blocks are selected with systematic proportional and stratified sampling by urban and rural areas (except for the National Capital District, which does not have rural areas). In the second stage, a fixed number of 24 households per cluster are selected with an equal probability of systematic selection. A total of 17,505 households were selected for the sample, of which 16,754 were occupied. Of the occupied households, 16,021 were interviewed. In the interviewed households, 18,175 women were identified for interviews, and 15,198 women participated successfully, yielding a response rate of 84%. The data used in the analyses were weighted to explain variations in the probability of selection and non-response. In this study, a weighted sub-sample consisted of 6,288 married women aged 15–49 years who were married or in a formal union and who had ever been pregnant, with complete cases on all of the variables studied included. Women with missing information, who had never been married and never had sex were excluded from the study because they had no risk of terminating a pregnancy (Fig 1). Detailed sampling procedures have been reported [30].

10.1371/journal.pone.0309913.g001 Fig 1 Flowchart of participant selection for this study.

Definition of variables

Dependent variable

The dependent variable for this study was pregnancy termination. Women were asked whether they had ever terminated a pregnancy. Information about the dependent variable was generated from this question. Respondents provided a “yes” or “no” as a response to the question to indicate whether they had ever terminated a pregnancy or not. Based on their responses, a dichotomous response of ‘Yes’ was coded ‘1’ when a woman reported that she had terminated a pregnancy, and ‘No’ was coded ‘0’ if she had not.

Independent variables

The independent variables were selected based on their availability in the dataset, practical significance, and theoretical relevance reported in the literature about pregnancy termination [14, 38, 39]. Variables were categorized into maternal, household, and maternal health-related characteristics. Maternal characteristics include age, educational level, literacy, occupation, mobile phone ownership, internet use, and place of residence. Household characteristics include the husband’s age, educational level, and occupation, the household wealth index, and the number of children living. Additionally, participants were asked whether they had experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) during their pregnancies. Their responses were categorized as having experienced IPV due to one or more of the following: being humiliated, threatened, insulted, pushed, slapped, punched with a fist, or hit with an object; being kicked, burned, threatened, or attacked with a knife; being twisted; being physically forced to have sexual intercourse; being physically forced to have any other sexual act; or performing any sexual acts against their will during pregnancy [30]. Maternal health-related characteristics include the last pregnancy being planned, knowledge of modern contraceptive methods, decision-maker for contraceptive use, knowledge of the menstrual cycle, number of antenatal visits, births in the last three years, and birth order.

Operational definition

Pregnancy termination or induced abortion: a pregnancy that is terminated by choice through an intervention. For this study, the terms pregnancy termination and abortion are used interchangeably.

Statistical analysis

Analyses were restricted to participants with complete data for the variables of interest. Sample weights were used in all analyses to adjust for disproportionate sampling and obtain reliable estimates and standard errors. Descriptive statistics were computed to report frequencies and percentages of the sample’s characteristics. The Chi-square test of independence was used to assess the association between the dependent and independent variables. Variables with a p<0.2 in the bivariate analysis were retained and included in the multivariate logistic regression analysis. The variance inflation factor was used to check for multicollinearity, and there was no evidence of multicollinearity. The model’s fitness was checked using Hosmer and Lemeshow [40]. To account for the multistage sampling design and sample weight, the Complex Samples Analysis technique was used, which provided generalizable and accurate estimates of proportion, probability values, and odds ratios [41]. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. A p ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Ethical considerations

Permission to access the datasets was obtained from the DHS Program and was only used for this study and not shared with a third party. The Institutionalized Review Board (IRB), the DHS survey implementing agency, and the IRB in host countries approved the survey protocols, ensuring ethical conduct in accordance with human subject research. Further ethical approval for this study was not required since data are available in the public domain (https://dhsprogram.com/). Written informed consent was obtained from the participants before each interview [30]. All the information about the participants had been anonymized before accessing the dataset for final analysis.

Results

Characteristics of the study participants

A total of 6,288 married women were included in the study. The mean age was 29.13 (± 9.61) years. Nearly half of the women were aged 25–34 years (47.9%) and had primary education (49.1%). The majority of them lived in rural areas (80.6%) and were not working (66.8%). Over half (51.9%) reported that they had experienced IPV from their husbands. Most women who planned their last pregnancies (80.6%) knew about modern contraceptive methods (86.4) and had menstrual cycle knowledge (77.7%). Similarly, over half (59.6%) of them made a joint decision (with their husbands) about contraceptive use and had one pregnancy (63.3%) in the past three years preceding the survey (Table 1).

10.1371/journal.pone.0309913.t001 Table 1 Characteristics of the study participants (N = 6,288).

Characteristics	Frequency (n)	Percent (%)	
Maternal factors			
Age (years)			
    15–24	1,536	24.4	
    25–34	3,010	47.9	
    35–44	1,561	24.8	
    45–49	181	2.9	
Mean age (SD) = 29.13 (± 9.61)			
Educational level			
    No formal education	1,612	25.6	
    Primary	3,082	49.1	
    Secondary	1,336	21.2	
    Higher	258	4.1	
Literacy (n = 6,259)			
    Cannot read/write	2,312	36.9	
    Can read/write	3,947	63.1	
Occupation			
    Not working	4,199	66.8	
    Working	2,089	33.2	
Tobacco/cigarette smoking			
    No	4,920	78.2	
    Yes	1,368	21.8	
Mobile phone ownership			
    No	4,362	69.4	
    Yes	1,926	30.6	
Place of residence			
    Urban	703	11.2	
    Rural	5,585	88.8	
Household factors			
Age of husband (years) (n = 3,916)			
    15–24	312	8.0	
    25–34	1,371	35.0	
    35–44	1,308	33.4	
    45 or more	925	23.6	
Educational level (husband) (n = 4,251)			
    No formal education	920	21.6	
    Primary	1,929	45.4	
    Secondary	1,165	27.4	
    Higher	237	5.6	
Occupation (husband) (n = 5,582)			
    Not working	2,773	49.7	
    Working	2,809	50.3	
Wealth index			
    Poorest	1,335	21.2	
    Poorer	1,246	19.8	
    Middle	1,245	19.8	
    Richer	1,250	19.9	
    Richest	1,212	19.3	
Number of children living			
    1	1,461	23.2	
    2	1,294	20.6	
    3 or more	3,533	56.2	
Intimate partner violence (IPV) (n = 2,500)			
    No	1,203	48.1	
    Yes	1,297	51.9	
Maternal health-related factors			
Last pregnancy planned			
    No	1,216	19.3	
    Yes	5,072	80.7	
Knowledge of modern contraceptive methods			
    No	855	13.6	
    Yes	5,433	86.4	
Knowledge of the ovulatory cycle			
    No	1,401	22.3	
    Yes	4,887	77.7	
Decision-maker for contraceptive use (n = 1,646)			
    Respondent	454	27.6	
    Husband/partner	199	12.0	
    Joint decision	993	60.4	
Number of antenatal visits (n = 2,655)			
    No visits	642	24.2	
    1–3	563	21.2	
    4 or more	1,450	54.6	
Birth order			
    1st	1,356	21.6	
    2nd	1,246	19.8	
    3rd	1,178	18.7	
    4th or more	2,508	39.9	
Births in the last 3 years (n = 4,661)			
    1	3,978	85.4	
    2	658	14.1	
    3	25	0.5	

Prevalence of pregnancy termination

The prevalence of pregnancy termination was 5.3% (95% CI: 0.05–0.06) among married women of reproductive age (15–49 years) in PNG. Among the three administrative regions, the Highlands (45,2%) had the highest pregnancy terminations rates (Fig 2).

10.1371/journal.pone.0309913.g002 Fig 2 The rates of pregnancy terminations by region in PNG.

Bivariate analysis of factors of pregnancy termination

Among women who had terminated a pregnancy, half (50.7%) of them were between the ages of 25 and 34 years. Many (42.6%) had primary education, while 53% were unemployed. Similarly, 43% of women’s husbands had primary education, and 64.3% were employed. The majority (71.5%) experienced intimate partner violence. Less than half (46.2%) of the respondents made independent decisions regarding contraceptive use. The Chi-square analysis revealed that maternal age, educational level, occupation, mobile phone ownership, internet use, place of residence, husband’s occupation, household wealth index, number of children living, IPV experience, knowledge of modern contraceptive methods, decision-maker for contraceptive use, ovulatory cycle knowledge, birth order, and births in the last three years were found to be statistically significant factors of pregnancy termination (p<0.05) (Table 2).

10.1371/journal.pone.0309913.t002 Table 2 Bivariate analysis of factors of pregnancy termination (N = 6,288).

Characteristics	Pregnancy termination		
No	%	Yes	%	p-value*	
Sample	5,948	94.7	340	5.3		
Maternal factors						
Age (years)					0.023	
    15–24	1,473	24.8	63	18.6		
    25–34	2,837	47.7	172	50.7		
    35–44	1,463	24.6	98	28.9		
    45–49	175	2.9	6	1.8		
Educational level					<0.001	
    No formal education	1,558	26.2	54	15.9		
    Primary	2,937	49.4	145	42.6		
    Secondary	1,246	20.9	90	26.5		
    Higher	207	3.5	51	15.0		
Literacy (n = 6,259)					<0.001	
    Cannot read/write	2,220	37.5	92	27.1		
    Can read/write	3,700	62.5	247	72.9		
Occupation					<0.001	
    Not working	4,019	67.6	180	52.9		
    Working	1,929	32.4	160	47.1		
Tobacco/cigarette smoking					0.001	
    No	4,680	78.7	240	70.8		
    Yes	1,268	21.3	99	29.2		
Mobile phone ownership					<0.001	
    No	4,159	69.9	203	59.7		
    Yes	1,789	30.1	137	40.3		
Place of residence					<0.001	
    Urban	633	10.3	70	20.6		
    Rural	5,315	89.4	270	79.4		
Household factors						
Age of husband (years) (n = 3,917)					0.624	
    15–24	296	8.0	17	8.7		
    25–34	1,299	34.9	72	36.7		
    35–44	1,251	33.6	57	29.1		
    45 or more	875	23.5	50	25.5		
Educational level of husband (n = 4,251)					0.320	
    No formal education	880	21.8	40	18.7		
    Primary	1,837	45.5	92	43.0		
    Secondary	1,095	27.1	70	32.7		
    Higher	225	5.6	12	5.6		
Occupation of husband (n = 5,582)					<0.001	
    Not working	2,672	50.4	101	35.7		
    Working	2,627	49.6	182	64.3		
Wealth index					<0.001	
    Poorest	1,278	21.5	58	17.1		
    Poorer	1,204	20.2	42	12.4		
    Rich	1,176	19.8	70	20.6		
    Richer	1,177	19.8	72	21.2		
    Richest	1,113	18.7	98	28.8		
Number of children living					<0.001	
    1	1,418	23.8	43	12.7		
    2	1,219	20.5	74	21.8		
    3 or more	3,312	55.7	222	65.5		
Experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) (n = 2,500)					<0.001	
    No	1,158	49.4	45	28.5		
    Yes	1,184	50.6	113	71.5		
Maternal health-related factors						
Last pregnancy planned					0.306	
    No	1,143	19.2	73	21.5		
    Yes	4,805	80.8	267	78.5		
Knowledge of modern contraceptive methods					<0.001	
    No	840	14.1	15	4.4		
    Yes	5,108	85.9	325	95.6		
Knowledge of the ovulatory cycle					0.025	
    No	1,342	22.6	59	17.4		
    Yes	4,606	77.4	281	82.6		
Decision-maker for contraceptive use (n = 1,646)					<0.001	
    Respondent	405	26.2	48	47.1		
    Husband/partner	180	11.7	19	18.6		
    Joint decision	959	62.1	35	34.3		
Number of antenatal visits (n = 2,655)					0.660	
    No visits	618	24.3	24	21.4		
    1–3	536	21.1	27	24.1		
    4 or more	1,389	54.9	61	54.5		
Birth order					<0.001	
    1st	1,320	22.2	36	10.6		
    2nd	1,185	19.9	61	17.9		
    3rd	1,078	18.1	100	29.4		
    4th or more	2,365	39.8	143	42.1		
Births in the last 3 years (n = 4,661)					0.002	
    1	3,778	85.7	200	78.7		
    2	608	13.8	50	19.7		
    3	21	0.5	4	1.6		
*Chi-square test, p ≤0.05

Multivariable analysis of factors associated with pregnancy termination

In the multivariable analysis, maternal age, education, occupation, mobile phone ownership, place of residence, IPV, knowledge of modern contraceptive methods, decision-maker for contraceptive use, and number of children living were significantly associated with pregnancy termination.

Women aged 35–44 years (aOR = 8.54; 95% CI: 1.61–45.26), not working (aOR = 6.17; 95% CI: 2.26–16.85), owned a mobile phone (aOR = 3.77; 95% CI: 1.60–8.84), and lived in urban areas (aOR = 5.66; 95% CI: 1.91–16.81) were more likely of pregnancy termination. Women who experienced IPV were 2.27 times (aOR = 2.27; 95% CI: 1.17–4.41) more likely to terminate a pregnancy compared to those who did not experience IPV. Women with unplanned pregnancies were 6.23 times (aOR = 6.23; 95% CI: 2.61–14.87) more likely to terminate a pregnancy. Women who knew about modern contraceptive methods and made independent decisions for contraceptive use were 3.38 and 2.54 times (aOR = 3.38; 95% CI: 1.39–8.18 and aOR = 2.54; 95% CI: 1.18–5.45, respectively) more likely to terminate a pregnancy. However, those aged 15–24 years (aOR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.07, 5.26), had husbands not working (aOR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.12, 0.63), had husbands making decisions for contraceptive use (aOR = 1.33; 95% CI: 0.54, 3.28), and had two children living (aOR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.96, 5.02) were less likely to terminate a pregnancy (Table 3).

10.1371/journal.pone.0309913.t003 Table 3 Multivariable analysis of factors associated with pregnancy termination (N = 6,288).

Characteristics	cOR (95% CI)	aOR (95% CI)	p-value*	
Age (years)			<0.001	
    15–24	1.34 (0.47, 3.81)	0.62 (0.07, 5.26)		
    25–34	1.89 (0.84, 4.28)	1.00 (0.17, 5.95)		
    35–44	2.09 (0.94, 4.66)	8.54 (1.61, 45.26)		
    45–49	Ref.	Ref.		
Educational level			0.292	
    No formal education	Ref.	Ref.		
    Primary	1.42 (0.86, 2.34)	0.89 (0.30, 2.65)		
    Secondary	2.07 (1.23, 3.48)	1.12 (0.21, 5.81)		
    Higher	7.10 (2.85, 17.68)	0.30 (0.05, 2.00)		
Literacy			0.523	
    Cannot read/write	Ref.	Ref.		
    Can read/write	1.62 (1.11, 2.35)	1.44 (0.47, 4.39)		
Occupation			<0.001	
    Not working	0.54 (0.37, 0.79)	6.17 (2.26, 16.85)		
    Working	Ref.	Ref.		
Tobacco/cigarette smoking			0.487	
    No	Ref.	Ref.		
    Yes	1.53 (0.89, 2.63)	1.38 (0.55, 3.45)		
Mobile phone ownership			0.002	
    No	Ref.	Ref.		
    Yes	1.57 (1.06, 2.33)	3.77 (1.60, 8.84)		
Place of residence			0.002	
    Urban	2.19 (1.53, 3.13)	5.66 (1.91, 16.81)		
    Rural	Ref.	Ref.		
Occupation (husband)			0.003	
    Not working	0.54 (0.37, 0.81)	0.27 (0.12, 0.63)		
    Working	Ref.	Ref.		
Wealth index			0.113	
    Poorest	Ref.	Ref.		
    Poorer	0.77 (0.41, 1.44)	1.17 (0.43, 3.20)		
    Rich	1.31 (0.78, 2.19)	0.44 (0.13, 1.44)		
    Richer	1.35 (0.79, 2.32)	0.19 (0.04, 0.88)		
    Richest	1.95 (1.06, 3.59)	0.19 (0.04, 0.98)		
Number of children living			0.033	
    1	Ref.	Ref.		
    2	1.99 (1.19, 3.32)	0.69 (0.96, 5.02)		
    3 or more	2.20 (1.36, 3.57)	0.07 (0.01, 0.95)		
Experienced intimate partner violence (IPV)			0.016	
    No	Ref.	Ref.		
    Yes	2.48 (1.52, 4.04)	2.27 (1.17, 4.41)		
Last pregnancy planned			<0.001	
    No	1.14 (0.77, 1.69)	6.23 (2.61, 14.87)		
    Yes	Ref.	Ref.		
Knowledge of modern contraceptive methods			0.007	
    No	Ref.	Ref.		
    Yes	3.65 (1.81, 7.36)	3.38 (1.39, 8.18)		
Knowledge of the ovulatory cycle			0.923	
    No	Ref.	Ref.		
    Yes	1.39 (0.88, 2.20)	0.96 (0.41, 2.27)		
Decision-maker for contraceptive use			0.05	
    Respondent	3.29 (1.19, 9.09)	2.54 (1.18, 5.45)		
    Husband/partner	2.89 (1.26, 6.65)	1.33 (0.54, 3.28)		
    Joint decision	Ref.	Ref.		
Birth order			0.394	
    1st	0.45 (0.27, 0.74)	0.07 (0.03, 1.68)		
    2nd	0.85 (0.59, 1.22)	0.39 (0.06, 2.54)		
    3rd	1.54 (0.82, 2.88)	0.59 (0.23, 1.53)		
    4th or more	Ref.	Ref.		
Birth in the last 3 years			0.443	
    1	Ref.	Ref.		
    2	1.57 (0.63, 3.88)	0.48 (0.16, 1.48)		
    3	3.23 (0.66, 15.73)	–		
*p ≤0.05

cOR = crude Odds Ratio; aOR = adjusted Odds Ratio; CI = Confidence Interval; Ref. = Reference category.

Discussion

The current study used nationally representative survey data, and estimated the prevalence and determined factors of pregnancy terminations among married women of reproductive age in PNG. It was found that married women endure a disproportionate proportion of pregnancy terminations that remain prevalent in the country, despite their social and legal implications [34]. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, maternal age, maternal occupation, mobile phone ownership, place of residence, husband’s occupation, IPV, pregnancy being planned, knowledge about modern contraceptive methods, and decision-maker for contraceptive use were found to be statistically significant factors in pregnancy termination.

The overall prevalence of pregnancy termination was 5.3%, with higher proportions reported from PNG’s Highlands region (45.2%). The prevalence of pregnancy termination was relatively lower than that of studies from East Africa (7.8%) [39], including Ethiopia (8.5%) [10], and Sierra Leone [42]. This difference may have existed due to the study population, geography, and the accessibility and availability of sexual and reproductive health services, including maternal and child health programs over the years.

According to the study’s results, being older was one of the major factors associated with pregnancy termination, particularly among women aged 35 or more. This finding was consistent with the results of prior studies conducted in 36 LMICs [14], including Ghana [43], Mozambique [43], and Sierra Leone [42], where women of advanced age had increased odds of pregnancy terminations compared to young women. A possible explanation could be that advanced maternal age predisposes women to medical and pregnancy-related complications such as pre-eclampsia, ectopic pregnancy, and gestational diabetes, including the unavoidable nature of maternal age, which may complicate pregnancy and lead to ending a pregnancy [14, 44, 45]. The positive association between married women and increased pregnancy termination rates could be due to the ineffectiveness or lack of contraceptive use [46]. Similarly, women who have reached their desired family size and believe they cannot get pregnant at that age have higher odds of terminating a pregnancy. A perceived need or a lack of access to contraceptive use at the end of the reproductive years could be the possible reason [42].

The association between place of residence and pregnancy termination has received much consideration in numerous studies, demonstrating that women residing in urban areas are significantly more likely to terminate a pregnancy [10, 14, 37]. Compared to rural women in this study, those in urban areas were about six times more likely to terminate a pregnancy. Urban women may have access to abortion information and services, including self-induced abortion [47]. On the contrary, the lower likelihood of pregnancy termination among rural women may be elucidated by the fact that access to abortion services, including sexual and reproductive health care, is inadequate because of disparities in health services and resource allocations between rural and urban areas. Similarly, restrictive gender and sociocultural norms that influence the sexual and reproductive healthcare-seeking behavior of rural women may be a possible explanation for the low prevalence of pregnancy termination.

The current study found a statistically significant relationship between pregnancy termination and occupation, with the odds higher among women who were not working. These findings are comparable to previous studies [43, 48], indicating a higher concentration of pregnancy terminations among socioeconomically disadvantaged women. Women who reported pregnancy termination may do so for financial constraints, partner-related reasons, or a desire to postpone childbearing, as demonstrated by prior studies [49, 50]. Moreover, financial barriers may contribute to disparities in contraceptive usage among poor women, who may not be able to afford modern contraceptives compared to working women, resulting in terminating a pregnancy. In contrast, other studies found that working women had higher probabilities of terminating a pregnancy than their unemployed counterparts [25, 42, 43]. Studies have argued that educated and working women are financially empowered, prioritize employment continuity, have a greater awareness of contraceptive options, and can afford abortion services [42, 43].

Compared to women who do not own mobile phones, the likelihood of terminating a pregnancy remained high among those who own mobile phones. This finding is contrary to previous studies [51–53], indicating that mobile phones in health (mHealth) have been shown to influence women’s perceptions and decisions on pregnancy and abortion services and improve post-abortion care, including family planning. Mobile phone use has increased considerably, along with reducing its costs, and remains a popular means to seek healthcare or obtain information about health issues [54]. In addition, women who have access to social media may be aware of the abortion laws in their country and are less likely to be stigmatized by society in their quest to have a pregnancy terminated [43]. Further research is needed to determine the relationship between the use of mobile phones and pregnancy termination among married women.

The association between IPV and pregnancy termination revealed in this study bolsters the earlier findings that being in an abusive relationship may affect women’s reproductive decision-making, which can result in pregnancy termination [55–57]. Married women who experienced IPV were twice as likely to terminate a pregnancy, which corroborates a recent study from PNG [58]. It has been reported that over two-thirds of PNG women have suffered some form of physical or sexual violence in their lifetime [59]. Women in abusive relationships may likely have less control over their sexuality and, as a result, become pregnant more often than they should, which might lead to an increase in the incidence of pregnancy terminations [56, 57]. Another possible explanation could be that the husband may be unwilling to accept the child and may use violence or other coercive means to force the woman to terminate the pregnancy or negatively influence her decision. Moreover, women experiencing IPV may have less autonomy in sexual and reproductive health and are confronting the challenges of unmet contraceptive use and unintended pregnancies [55, 58, 60]. While terminating a pregnancy may most likely be the woman’s choice, other options for her may also be limited in an abusive relationship. An insight into socioeconomic and demographic conditions sanctioning violence remains crucial and entails women’s empowerment programs. The call to reinforce the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence [61], and prioritize violence prevention, along with strengthening provisions for issuing interim and long-term protection orders for survivors is necessary. Furthermore, empowering women through education and social support services can enhance their self-confidence and enable them to make informed decisions about sexual and reproductive health.

In this study, unplanned pregnancy was a significant predictor associated with increased odds of pregnancy termination. This is consistent with a previous study conducted in Kenya [62]. One elucidation may be that unintended pregnancy mainly results from a lack of or inconsistent use of contraceptive methods, as reported in earlier studies [63, 64]. Similarly, women may have insufficient or inaccurate knowledge and concerns about the side effects of contraception. Evidence has shown that contraception use is influenced by women’s knowledge, beliefs, perceptions of health risks, and previous experience [65]. The inadequate provision of family planning services to address contraceptive needs for married women at risk of unintended pregnancies may lead to increased unwanted pregnancies, followed by pregnancy termination [65, 66]. Effective contraception has several advantages, including better mother health and social and economic empowerment, while reducing the risk of an unplanned or undesired pregnancy [65]. In addition, the need to improve family planning services while paying special attention, particularly for women of advanced age or those who prefer not to have children is warranted.

The current study complements the growing evidence that women who knew about modern contraceptive methods were three times more likely to terminate a pregnancy compared to their counterparts. This association corroborated recent findings in Ethiopia [10] and Nepal [67], where women with excellent contraceptive and abortion knowledge were more likely to terminate a pregnancy than those with poor contraceptive knowledge. Similarly, this study found a significant association between individual decision-making regarding contraceptive use and pregnancy termination. Women who could make independent decisions about their reproductive health were more likely to terminate a pregnancy [25]. Women may foresee financial constraints associated with childrearing, social pressure against untimely pregnancies, and experiences of marital issues that encourage them to terminate a pregnancy [58, 68]. Another possible explanation could be that women who are educated and working have higher odds of decision-making power [69].

Concerning birth history, women with two or fewer children were less likely to terminate a pregnancy. This suggests that women understand the importance of contraceptive use and have delayed childbearing or achieved the desired family size. Consistent with studies in sub-Saharan Africa [14, 70], pregnancy termination rates remained low among women with fewer than four children. The probable reason may be that women with fewer children could do so due to effective contraceptive use, higher education attainment, and the probability of their involvement in income-generating activities. Another possible explanation is that women with living children may have a decreased future reproductive desire and a high intention to use contraceptives [71].

Strengths and limitations of the study

The study had several strengths. Data were drawn from a nationally representative survey conducted from 2016 to 2018, which was weighted to ensure representativeness and a valid estimate. The study also employed the Complex aSmples Analysis method to account for the multistage sampling design used in the PNGDHS and obtained a reliable standard error and estimate. However, this survey was cross-sectional, and the results cannot be used to make causal inferences. There is also a high probability of social desirability bias, which might result in underreporting. A plausible explanation is that women may be reluctant to admit to terminating a pregnancy since it is not decriminalized and for fear of experiencing intimate partner violence from their partners, where social and cultural norms influence women’s decisions [34, 58]. Furthermore, the PNGDHS database did not include methods of pregnancy termination with abortifacients such as misoprostol or mifepristone or any other non-conventional methods such as traditional herbs, barks, leaves, or traumatic physical injuries. Nonetheless, the questions were generalized retrospectively to establish the prevalence of pregnancy termination only.

Implications for policy and practice

Women who terminate a pregnancy outside the purview of the Criminal Code Act [31] are considered offenders in PNG. Abortion has not been decriminalized in the country, and the law only outlines the circumstances under which it will not be considered illegal. Nonetheless, the growing evidence of abortion-related complications requiring hospitalization, including disability and mortality, suggests that the practice remains prevalent and may increase. In consultation with qualified medical practitioners and professional bodies (the Professional Medical and Nursing/Midwifery Society and the National Department of Health), they need to recommend constitutional directives and reformation of the criminal law restricting access to termination of pregnancy. Furthermore, decriminalizing abortion should be viewed within a medical-legal paradigm while ensuring that the service is accessible and available to reduce adverse maternal health outcomes in the country.

Conclusion

The findings highlight the role of sociodemographic and maternal factors in pregnancy termination among married women in PNG. Maternal age, occupation, mobile phone ownership, living in urban areas, IPV, unplanned pregnancy, knowledge of modern contraceptive methods, and decision-maker for contraceptive use were significantly associated with pregnancy termination. Abortion-related complications and, in some cases, deaths are due to the criminalization of this health care issue, and it is inconsistent with human rights that this should be more so for the disadvantaged, the uneducated, the lower socioeconomic strata of society, and women living in rural areas. Efforts aimed at reducing unplanned pregnancies and terminations should focus on improving easy access to contraceptives and comprehensive sexual and reproductive health education. This is crucial for increasing self-confidence and enabling them to make informed decisions about their sexual and reproductive health. Furthermore, creating an enabling environment that respects and safeguards women’s access to post-abortion care is warranted. This should also be expanded to the full extent of the country’s legal framework and added as an integral component of existing sexual and reproductive health services.

Supporting information

S1 Table The STROBE guidelines for cross-sectional studies.

(DOCX)

The authors would like to thank the DHS program and its partners for permitting them to analyze the dataset.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309913.r001
Decision Letter 0
Akombi-Inyang Blessing Academic Editor
© 2024 Blessing Akombi-Inyang
2024
Blessing Akombi-Inyang
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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.
Submission Version0
12 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-24906Prevalence of pregnancy termination and associated factors among married women in Papua New Guinea: a nationally representative cross-sectional surveyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Maviso,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 26 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Blessing Akombi-Inyang, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The study discusses the prevalence and associated factors of pregnancy termination among married women aged 15–49 in Papua New Guinea (PNG), where abortion is not decriminalized and access to safe abortion services is scarce. The study concludes that pregnancy termination rates remain high in PNG, highlighting the urgent need for health interventions and support services to prevent unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortion practices. Emphasizing the necessity of expanding access to safe abortion services and integrating them into existing sexual and reproductive healthcare is crucial for addressing this issue comprehensively. Although it is a very relevant and important report for the current issue surrounding unsafe abortion in PNG, there are some points that should be addressed before further evaluation for publication, here are some comments to improve the manuscript:

1- Line 41: Please add «married» women as the sample is restricted to those populations if it is the total number of women who participated in this survey, then you should mention it and also include the age group.

2- Line 147-149: you have mentioned that women who were married or in a formal union and responded to whether they had ever terminated a pregnancy with complete information on all factors of interest were eligible to participate. Since you have used secondary data and not conducted the survey, it is better to revise the sentence and write you have only included the married or in formal union women who had ever terminated a pregnancy with complete information on all factors of interest.

3- you have only included the married or in formal union women, I believe if traditionally and culturally, marriage is the only accepted practice to get pregnant in PNG then the risk of illegal abortion and complications would be higher than those who are in formal relation such as girl friend and boy friend or cohabiting partners that have not married. My recommendation would be to separate them and do a separate analysis for these two groups and see if there is a difference unless you have a reasonable explanation for why you have included both.

4- I strongly believe that you should exclude those who are less than 18 years old as they are considered children by definition and illegal abortion, risk factors, and complications are often more prevalent among them especially if they are exposed to violence and discrimination in informal relationships.

5- line 165: education and literacy are different concepts, therefore I advise including literacy. It has been shown that women with literacy even with no formal education have a better pregnancy outcome. Some of those with no education still have literacy of reading and writing

5- another important variable could be the husband or partner's age, education, and employment. I suggest to include it

6- how the missing data were handled?

7- the analysis strategy for multivariate analysis including the choice of the independent variables that included in the models and the technique that has been used to do so as well as the strategy to construct the final optimal model should be explained

8-

Reviewer #2: Thank you dear editor for inviting me to review this manuscript which provides interesting findings for policy makers in the respective country. I have provided the following comments for the author.

1.Prevalence of pregnancy termination and associated factors among married women in Papua New Guinea- the tittle is informative and clearly understandable however the focus of your study is on induced abortion particularly unsafe abortion so why did you used the general term ‘’pregnancy termination’’?

2. What do you think about the non-response rate which is very high in this study so how did you manage it?

3. On the conclusion part you said the prevalence of pregnancy termination among married women remains high in PNG. What was your reference to say it is high?

4. On the data source line number 149 you said that the extracted data on these women included information on their socio-demographic characteristics and the history of termination of pregnancy within the three years preceding the survey. You did not exclude those mothers without the history of pregnancy within the three years. I raised this issue because it has no importance of including them in this study since they were not pregnant within the three years.

5. The line umber 159 ….Women were asked whether they had ever terminated a pregnancy. The response was coded as “0” for “No” and “1” for “Yes” for pregnancy termination. For this study, the terms pregnancy termination and induced abortion are used interchangeably. This part should be written in the operational definition.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Omid Dadras

Reviewer #2: Yes: Yosef Haile Gebremariam

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment Submitted filename: comments for author.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0309913.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
2 Jun 2024

Reviewer #1:

The study discusses the prevalence and associated factors of pregnancy termination among married women aged 15–49 in Papua New Guinea (PNG), where abortion is not decriminalized and access to safe abortion services is scarce. The study concludes that pregnancy termination rates remain high in PNG, highlighting the urgent need for health interventions and support services to prevent unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortion practices. Emphasizing the necessity of expanding access to safe abortion services and integrating them into existing sexual and reproductive healthcare is crucial for addressing this issue comprehensively. Although it is a very relevant and important report for the current issue surrounding unsafe abortion in PNG, there are some points that should be addressed before further evaluation for publication, here are some comments to improve the manuscript:

Response: Thank you for your time in reviewing our manuscript. Your comments and suggestions are very important and have been taken into consideration to improve the paper. We have looked through the areas and sections highlighted and made the necessary changes and corrections which are now reflected in the manuscript.

1- Line 41: Please add «married» women as the sample is restricted to those populations if it is the total number of women who participated in this survey, then you should mention it and also include the age group.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this oversight. We have now included “married” and is reflected in the text.

2- Line 147-149: you have mentioned that women who were married or in a formal union and responded to whether they had ever terminated a pregnancy with complete information on all factors of interest were eligible to participate. Since you have used secondary data and not conducted the survey, it is better to revise the sentence and write you have only included the married or in formal union women who had ever terminated a pregnancy with complete information on all factors of interest.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this to improve the clarity of the sentence. The sentence has been revised. It is corrected and is reflected in the text.

3- you have only included the married or in formal union women, I believe if traditionally and culturally, marriage is the only accepted practice to get pregnant in PNG then the risk of illegal abortion and complications would be higher than those who are in formal relation such as girlfriend and boyfriend or cohabiting partners that have not married. My recommendation would be to separate them and do a separate analysis for these two groups and see if there is a difference unless you have a reasonable explanation for why you have included both.

Response: Thank you for the recommendation. Our analysis focused mainly on those women who reported that they were married and not in any boy-girl relationships or as cohabiting partners. Also, the demographic and health survey (DHS) data did not specifically ask about the type of relationships the women were in, during the time of the survey. The survey questions only asked whether they were married or not. Some women who were married and were divorced, separated, or widowed were recorded. Only those women who reported being married were included in this study. We, therefore could explore the determinants of pregnancy termination among women in informal (unmarried) relationships in future analyses, as presumptively, these group could yield higher results of pregnancy termination.

4- I strongly believe that you should exclude those who are less than 18 years old as they are considered children by definition and illegal abortion, risk factors, and complications are often more prevalent among them especially if they are exposed to violence and discrimination in informal relationships.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this for further explanation. It is established that marriage in most societies in PNG is closely linked to socio-cultural influences. In most instances, women often marry at an early age (>18 years). It is possible that women were unsure of their date of birth and indicated the wrong age during the survey, especially young married women from rural areas. The survey data lacked a specific age of marriage, and we are unsure whether women were married too early (<18 years); therefore, we only used the age-aggregated variable (V013).

5- line 165: education and literacy are different concepts; therefore, I advise including literacy. It has been shown that women with literacy even with no formal education have a better pregnancy outcome. Some of those with no education still have literacy of reading and writing

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have included the variable literacy.

5- another important variable could be the husband or partner's age, education, and employment. I suggest to include it.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have included the variable partner’s age.

6- how the missing data were handled?

Response: Thank you for seeking clarification. Data were missing at random, which were not evident across all observations, but only within sub-samples of the data. Those missing data in variables of interest that have low percentage (<5%) were dropped, while those with high percentage (>5%) were retained for final analysis. This is reflected in the results (table 1 and Table 2).

7- the analysis strategy for multivariate analysis including the choice of the independent variables that included in the models and the technique that has been used to do so as well as the strategy to construct the final optimal model should be explained

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The independent variables were selected based on their availability in the dataset, practical significance, and relevance reported in the literature about pregnancy termination. Since the study used data collected by a cluster sampling technique, a complex sample analysis was deemed a suitable technique. Also, complex sample analysis provides valid estimates of parameters because, during analysis, it accounts for sample weighting, clustering, and stratification. Thus, a complex sample logistic regression was used to perform a multivariable analysis of predictors of pregnancy termination. This is explained in the methods.

Reviewer #2:

Thank you dear editor for inviting me to review this manuscript which provides interesting findings for policy makers in the respective country. I have provided the following comments for the author.

Response: Thank you for your time in reviewing our manuscript. Your comments and suggestions are taken into consideration to improve our paper. We have looked through the areas and sections highlighted and made the necessary changes and corrections, and are all reflected in the manuscript.

1. Prevalence of pregnancy termination and associated factors among married women in Papua New Guinea- the tittle is informative and clearly understandable however the focus of your study is on induced abortion particularly unsafe abortion so why did you used the general term ‘’pregnancy termination’’?

Response: Thank you for seeking clarification. We have used the term “pregnancy termination” throughout this analysis, as this is probably the softer and more non-discriminatory way of describing the issue (euphemism).We have therefore included an operational definition as suggested.

2. What do you think about the non-response rate which is very high in this study so how did you manage it?

Response: Thank you for seeking clarification. The design weights were adjusted for individual non-response to get the sampling weights for women. Non-response is adjusted at the sampling stratum level. After adjusting for non-response, the sampling weights are normalized to get the final standard weights that appear in the data for analysis.

3. On the conclusion part you said the prevalence of pregnancy termination among married women remains high in PNG. What was your reference to say it is high?

Response: Thank you for highlighting this to seek further clarification. We acknowledge the statement as on oversight. The sentence has been revised and corrected. It is reflected in the conclusion: Pregnancy termination is performed among married women in PNG.

4. On the data source line number 149 you said that the extracted data on these women included information on their socio-demographic characteristics and the history of termination of pregnancy within the three years preceding the survey. You did not exclude those mothers without the history of pregnancy within the three years. I raised this issue because it has no importance of including them in this study since they were not pregnant within the three years.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this oversight. We have revised and dropped those married women who have no history of pregnancy in the past 3 years. It has been corrected and is reflected in the text.

5. The line umber 159 …. Women were asked whether they had ever terminated a pregnancy. The response was coded as “0” for “No” and “1” for “Yes” for pregnancy termination. For this study, the terms pregnancy termination and induced abortion are used interchangeably. This part should be written in the operational definition.

Response: Thank you. Yes, we have included it as operational definition for this study. It is reflected in the manuscript.

Attachment Submitted filename: Cover letter - Response to Reviewers.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0309913.r003
Decision Letter 1
Buh Amos Academic Editor
© 2024 Amos Buh
2024
Amos Buh
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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.
Submission Version1
21 Aug 2024

Prevalence of pregnancy termination and associated factors among married women in Papua New Guinea: a nationally representative cross-sectional survey

PONE-D-23-24906R1

Dear Dr. Maviso,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Amos Buh, BSc., MPH, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Yosef Haile Gebremariam

**********

10.1371/journal.pone.0309913.r004
Acceptance letter
Buh Amos Academic Editor
© 2024 Amos Buh
2024
Amos Buh
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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.
26 Aug 2024

PONE-D-23-24906R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Maviso,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Amos Buh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE
==== Refs
References

1 Afiaz A , Biswas RK , Shamma R , Ananna N . Intimate partner violence (IPV) with miscarriages, stillbirths and abortions: Identifying vulnerable households for women in Bangladesh. PLOS ONE. 2020 Jul 28;15 (7 ):e0236670. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236670 32722708
2 Kuppusamy P , Prusty RK , Chaaithanya IK , Gajbhiye RK , Sachdeva G . Pregnancy outcomes among Indian women: increased prevalence of miscarriage and stillbirth during 2015–2021. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2023 Mar 8;23 (1 ):150. doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-05470-3 36890450
3 World Health Organization. Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems [Internet]. 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/70914
4 World Health Organization. Abortion: Key facts [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion
5 Jadav D , C Bhargava D , Meshram V , S Shekhawat R , Kanchan T . Medical termination of pregnancy: A global perspective and Indian scenario. Med Leg J. 2024 Mar;92 (1 ):34–42. doi: 10.1177/00258172231155317 37017394
6 Abubeker FA , Lavelanet A , Rodriguez MI , Kim C . Medical termination for pregnancy in early first trimester (≤ 63 days) using combination of mifepristone and misoprostol or misoprostol alone: a systematic review. BMC Women’s Health. 2020 Dec;20 (1 ):142.32635921
7 Gebremedhin M , Semahegn A , Usmael T , Tesfaye G . Unsafe abortion and associated factors among reproductive aged women in Sub-Saharan Africa: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews. 2018 Aug 25;7 (1 ):130. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0775-9 30144826
8 Bearak J , Popinchalk A , Ganatra B , Moller AB , Tunçalp Ö , Beavin C , et al . Unintended pregnancy and abortion by income, region, and the legal status of abortion: estimates from a comprehensive model for 1990–2019. The Lancet Global Health. 2020 Sep 1;8 (9 ):e1152–61. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30315-6 32710833
9 Say L , Chou D , Gemmill A , Tunçalp Ö , Moller AB , Daniels J , et al . Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. The Lancet Global Health. 2014 Jun 1;2 (6 ):e323–33. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70227-X 25103301
10 Yemane GD , Korsa BB , Jemal SS . Multilevel analysis of factors associated with pregnancy termination in Ethiopia. Annals of Medicine and Surgery. 2022 Aug 1;80 :104120. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2022.104120 36045825
11 Allotey P , Ravindran TKS , Sathivelu V . Trends in Abortion Policies in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Annu Rev Public Health. 2021 Apr 1;42 (1 ):505–18. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-082619-102442 33138701
12 Ahinkorah BO , Seidu AA , Hagan JE , Archer AG , Budu E , Adoboi F , et al . Predictors of Pregnancy Termination among Young Women in Ghana: Empirical Evidence from the 2014 Demographic and Health Survey Data. Healthcare. 2021;9 (6 ). doi: 10.3390/healthcare9060705 34200654
13 Lokubal P , Corcuera I , Balil JM , Frischer SR , Kayemba CN , Kurinczuk JJ , et al . Abortion decision-making process trajectories and determinants in low- and middle-income countries: A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis. eClinicalMedicine. 2022 Dec 1;54 :101694. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101694 36277313
14 Ba DM , Zhang Y , Pasha-Razzak O , Khunsriraksakul C , Maiga M , Chinchilli VM , et al . Factors associated with pregnancy termination in women of childbearing age in 36 low-and middle-income countries. PLOS Global Public Health. 2023 Feb 28;3 (2 ):e0001509. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001509 36963033
15 Kantorová V. Unintended pregnancy and abortion: what does it tell us about reproductive health and autonomy? The Lancet Global Health. 2020 Sep 1;8 (9 ):e1106–7. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30342-9 32710832
16 Mohamed EAEB Hamed AF , Yousef FMA Ahmed EA . Prevalence, determinants, and outcomes of unintended pregnancy in Sohag district, Egypt. Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association. 2019 Mar 13;94 (1 ):14. doi: 10.1186/s42506-019-0014-9 32813191
17 Omani-Samani R , Amini Rarani M , Sepidarkish M , Khedmati Morasae E , Maroufizadeh S , Almasi-Hashiani A . Socioeconomic inequality of unintended pregnancy in the Iranian population: a decomposition approach. BMC Public Health. 2018 May 9;18 (1 ):607. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5515-5 29739402
18 Yazdkhasti M , Pourreza A , Pirak A , Abdi F . Unintended Pregnancy and Its Adverse Social and Economic Consequences on Health System: A Narrative Review Article. Iran J Public Health. 2015 Jan;44 (1 ):12–21. 26060771
19 Zhou J , Blaylock R , Harris M . Systematic review of early abortion services in low- and middle-income country primary care: potential for reverse innovation and application in the UK context. Globalization and Health. 2020 Sep 30;16 (1 ):91. doi: 10.1186/s12992-020-00613-z 32993694
20 Sahoo H , Stillman M , Frost J , Acharya R , Hussain R . Availability, practices and acceptance of postabortion contraceptive services in health facilities: A study in six states of India. Contraception. 2020 Feb 1;101 (2 ):106–11. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2019.10.013 31811843
21 Blais L , Kettani FZ , Forget A . Relationship between maternal asthma, its severity and control and abortion. Human Reproduction. 2013 Apr 1;28 (4 ):908–15. doi: 10.1093/humrep/det024 23427230
22 Cavalcante MB , Sarno M , Peixoto AB , Araujo Júnior E , Barini R . Obesity and recurrent miscarriage: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. 2019 Jan 1;45 (1 ):30–8. doi: 10.1111/jog.13799 30156037
23 Su Y , Xie X , Zhou Y , Lin H , Li Y , Feng N , et al . Association of induced abortion with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy risk among nulliparous women in China: a prospective cohort study. Scientific Reports. 2020 Mar 20;10 (1 ):5128. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-61827-0 32198426
24 Zhao Y , Zhao Y , Fan K , Jin L . Association of History of Spontaneous or Induced Abortion With Subsequent Risk of Gestational Diabetes. JAMA Network Open. 2022 Mar 3;5 (3 ):e220944–e220944. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.0944 35238932
25 Seidu AA , Ahinkorah BO , Ameyaw EK , Hubert A , Agbemavi W , Armah-Ansah EK , et al . What has women’s reproductive health decision-making capacity and other factors got to do with pregnancy termination in sub-Saharan Africa? evidence from 27 cross-sectional surveys. PLOS ONE. 2020 Jul 23;15 (7 ):e0235329. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235329 32702035
26 Grundy J , Dakulala P , Wai K , Maalsen A , Whittaker M . Independent State of Papua New Guinea Health System Review. World Health Organization. Regional Office for South-East Asia; 2019.
27 Robbers G , Vogel JP , Mola G , Bolgna J , Homer CSE . Maternal and newborn health indicators in Papua New Guinea– 2008–2018. Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters. 2019 Jan 1;27 (1 ):52–68. doi: 10.1080/26410397.2019.1686199 31790637
28 Mola G , Kirby B . Discrepancies between national maternal mortality data and international estimates: the experience of Papua New Guinea. Reproductive Health Matters. 2013 Jan 1;21 (42 ):191–202. doi: 10.1016/S0968-8080(13)42725-8 24315074
29 Sanga K , de Costa C , Mola G . A review of maternal deaths at Goroka General Hospital, Papua New Guinea 2005–2008. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2010 Feb 1;50 (1 ):21–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2009.01116.x 20218992
30 National Statistical Office (NSO) [Papua New Guinea], ICF. Papua New Guinea Demographic and Health Survey 2016–18 [Internet]. Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: NSO and ICF; 2019. Available from: https://www.dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR364/FR364.pdf
31 Government of Papua New Guinea. Criminal Code Act 1974 pp.; Ordinance No.7 of 1902. revised 1974: Chapter 1262, parts 25,26,80. Government of Papua New Guinea; 1974.
32 Kolodziejczyk I , Kuzma J . Knowledge and Attitudes Towards Abortion and Euthanasia Among Health Students in Papua New Guinea. Advances in Medical Education and Practice. 2020 Dec 31;11 :977–87. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S281199 33363426
33 Asa I , de Costa C , Mola G . A prospective survey of cases of complications of induced abortion presenting to Goroka hospital, Papua New Guinea, 2011. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2012 Oct 1;52 (5 ):491–3. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2012.01452.x 22694099
34 Kopunye F , Mola G , Woods C , de Costa C . Induced abortion in Papua-New Guinea: Experience and opinions of health professionals. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2021 Dec 1;61 (6 ):961–8. doi: 10.1111/ajo.13433 34585744
35 Vallely LM , Homiehombo P , Kelly-Hanku A , Whittaker A . Unsafe abortion requiring hospital admission in the Eastern Highlands of Papua New Guinea—a descriptive study of women’s and health care workers’ experiences. Reproductive Health. 2015 Mar 21;12 (1 ):22. doi: 10.1186/s12978-015-0015-x 25889957
36 de Costa C , Mola G . A review of maternal deaths at Goroka General Hospital, Papua New Guinea 2005–2008. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2009;1.19281570
37 Bolnga JW , Lufele E , Teno M , Agua V , Ao P , DL Mola G , et al . Incidence of self-induced abortion with misoprostol, admitted to a provincial hospital in Papua New Guinea: A prospective observational study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2021 Dec 1;61 (6 ):955–60. doi: 10.1111/ajo.13413 34350583
38 Bago BJ , Hibstu DT , Woldemariam SH . Prevalence of pregnancy termination and its associated factors among women of reproductive age group in Ethiopia using 2011 Ethiopian demography and health survey, 2016. J Preg Child Health. 2016;4 (6 ).
39 Hailegebreal S , Enyew EB , Simegn AE , Seboka BT , Gilano G , Kassa R , et al . Pooled prevalence and associated factors of pregnancy termination among youth aged 15–24 year women in East Africa: Multilevel level analysis. PLOS ONE. 2022 Dec 22;17 (12 ):e0275349.36548267
40 Hansen AM . Goodness-of-fit tests for autoregressive logistic regression models and generalized linear mixed models. University of California, Riverside; 2012.
41 Archer KJ , Lemeshow S , Hosmer DW . Goodness-of-fit tests for logistic regression models when data are collected using a complex sampling design. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis. 2007 May 15;51 (9 ):4450–64.
42 Sesay FR , Anaba EA , Manu A , Maya E , Torpey K , Adanu RMK . Determinants of induced abortion among women of reproductive age: evidence from the 2013 and 2019 Sierra Leone Demographic and Health Survey. BMC Women’s Health. 2023 Feb 1;23 (1 ):44. doi: 10.1186/s12905-023-02175-9 36726133
43 Dickson KS , Adde KS , Ahinkorah BO . Socio–economic determinants of abortion among women in Mozambique and Ghana: evidence from demographic and health survey. Archives of Public Health. 2018 Jul 19;76 (1 ):37. doi: 10.1186/s13690-018-0286-0 30034803
44 Attali E , Yogev Y . The impact of advanced maternal age on pregnancy outcome. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2021 Jan 1;70 :2–9. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2020.06.006 32773291
45 Pinheiro RL , Areia AL , Mota Pinto A , Donato H . Advanced Maternal Age: Adverse Outcomes of Pregnancy, A Meta-Analysis. Acta Med Port. 2019 Mar 29;32 (3 ):219–26. doi: 10.20344/amp.11057 30946794
46 Eunice Ojo I , Olumuyiwa Ojo T , Okechukwu Orji E . Why do married women procure abortion? Experiences from Ile-Ife, south western Nigeria. Afr H Sci. 2021 Apr 16;21 (1 ):327–37.
47 Moseson H , Jayaweera R , Raifman S , Keefe-Oates B , Filippa S , Motana R , et al . Self-managed medication abortion outcomes: results from a prospective pilot study. Reproductive Health. 2020 Oct 27;17 (1 ):164. doi: 10.1186/s12978-020-01016-4 33109230
48 Yaya Sanni , Amouzou Agbessi , Olalekan A Uthman Michael Ekholuenetale , Bishwajit Ghose , Udenigwe Ogochukwu , et al . Prevalence and determinants of terminated and unintended pregnancies among married women: analysis of pooled cross-sectional surveys in Nigeria. BMJ Global Health. 2018 Mar 1;3 (2 ):e000707. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000707 29713502
49 Biggs MA , Gould H , Foster DG . Understanding why women seek abortions in the US. BMC Womens Health. 2013 Jul 5;13 :29. doi: 10.1186/1472-6874-13-29 23829590
50 Chae S , Desai S , Crowell M , Sedgh G . Reasons why women have induced abortions: a synthesis of findings from 14 countries. Contraception. 2017 Oct;96 (4 ):233–41. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2017.06.014 28694165
51 Smith C , Vannak U , Sokhey L , Ngo TD , Gold J , Free C . Mobile Technology for Improved Family Planning (MOTIF): the development of a mobile phone-based (mHealth) intervention to support post-abortion family planning (PAFP) in Cambodia. Reproductive Health. 2016 Jan 5;13 (1 ):1.26728505
52 Gill R , Ogilvie G , Norman WV , Fitzsimmons B , Maher C , Renner R . Feasibility and Acceptability of a Mobile Technology Intervention to Support Postabortion Care in British Columbia: Phase I. J Med Internet Res. 2019 May 29;21 (5 ):e13387. doi: 10.2196/13387 31144668
53 Mangone ER , Lebrun V , Muessig KE . Mobile Phone Apps for the Prevention of Unintended Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Content Analysis. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2016 Jan 19;4 (1 ):e6. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.4846 26787311
54 Stifani BM , Peters M , French K , Gill RK . There’s an App for it: A systematic review of mobile apps providing information about abortion using a revised MARS scale. PLOS Digital Health. 2023 Jul 17;2 (7 ):e0000277. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000277 37459287
55 Arthur-Holmes F , Aboagye RG , Dadzie LK , Agbaglo E , Okyere J , Seidu AA , et al . Intimate Partner Violence and Pregnancy Termination Among Women in Sub-Saharan Africa. J Interpers Violence. 2023 Jan 1;38 (1–2 ):2092–111. doi: 10.1177/08862605221098405 35585757
56 Rahman M. Intimate partner violence and termination of pregnancy: a cross-sectional study of married Bangladeshi women. Reproductive Health. 2015 Nov 5;12 (1 ):102. doi: 10.1186/s12978-015-0095-7 26542218
57 Bagheri R , Farahani FK , Ebrahimi M . Domestic Violence and Its Impact on Abortion in Iran: Evidence From a Nationally Representative Survey. J Interpers Violence. 2023 Aug 1;38 (15–16 ):9492–513. doi: 10.1177/08862605231168824 37102584
58 Agyemang-Duah W , Asare BYA , Adu C , Agyekum AK , Peprah P . Intimate partner violence as a determinant of pregnancy termination among women in unions: evidence from the 2016–2018 Papua New Guinea Demographic and Health Survey. Journal of Biosocial Science. 2023/05/22 ed. 2023;1–14. doi: 10.1017/S002193202300007X 37211884
59 Darko E , Smith W , Walker D . Gender Violence in Papua New Guinea. The cost of business. 2015;
60 Ahinkorah BO , Aboagye RG , Cadri A , Salihu T , Seidu AA , Yaya S . Exposure to interparental violence and intimate partner violence among women in Papua New Guinea. BMC Women’s Health. 2023 Feb 7;23 (1 ):48. doi: 10.1186/s12905-023-02179-5 36750895
61 Government of Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender Based Violence 2016–2025. Government of Papua New Guinea; 2012.
62 Jayaweera RT , Ngui FM , Hall KS , Gerdts C . Women’s experiences with unplanned pregnancy and abortion in Kenya: A qualitative study. PLOS ONE. 2018 Jan 25;13 (1 ):e0191412. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191412 29370220
63 Alene M , Yismaw L , Berelie Y , Kassie B , Yeshambel R , Assemie MA . Prevalence and determinants of unintended pregnancy in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. PLOS ONE. 2020 Apr 7;15 (4 ):e0231012. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231012 32255774
64 Bekele YA , Fekadu GA . Factors associated with unintended pregnancy in Ethiopia; further analysis of the 2016 Ethiopian demographic health survey data. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2021 Jul 6;21 (1 ):486. doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-03924-0 34229647
65 D’Souza P , Bailey JV , Stephenson J , Oliver S . Factors influencing contraception choice and use globally: a synthesis of systematic reviews. The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care. 2022 Sep 3;27 (5 ):364–72. doi: 10.1080/13625187.2022.2096215 36047713
66 Ojo IE , Ojo TO , Orji EO . Why do married women procure abortion? Experiences from Ile-Ife, south western Nigeria. Afr Health Sci. 2021 Mar;21 (1 ):327–37. doi: 10.4314/ahs.v21i1.42 34394314
67 Yogi A , C P K. , Neupane S . Prevalence and factors associated with abortion and unsafe abortion in Nepal: a nationwide cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2018 Sep 17;18 (1 ):376. doi: 10.1186/s12884-018-2011-y 30223798
68 Vallely LM , Homiehombo P , Kelly-Hanku A , Kumbia A , Mola GDL , Whittaker A . Hospital Admission following Induced Abortion in Eastern Highlands Province, Papua New Guinea–A Descriptive Study. PLOS ONE. 2014 Oct 17;9 (10 ):e110791. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110791 25329982
69 Demissie GD , Akalu Y , Gelagay AA , Alemnew W , Yeshaw Y . Factors associated with decision-making power of married women to use family planning in sub-Saharan Africa: a multilevel analysis of demographic health surveys. BMC Public Health. 2022 Apr 26;22 (1 ):837. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13251-4 35473613
70 Bolarinwa OA , Afaya A , Ajayi KV , Ojo A , Alawode OA . Prevalence and factors associated with the use of long-acting reversible and permanent contraceptive methods among women who desire no more children in high fertility countries in sub-saharan Africa. BMC Public Health. 2022 Nov 21;22 (1 ):2141. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14575-x 36414944
71 Mohammed A , Woldeyohannes D , Feleke A , Megabiaw B . Determinants of modern contraceptive utilization among married women of reproductive age group in North Shoa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Reproductive Health. 2014 Feb 3;11 (1 ):13. doi: 10.1186/1742-4755-11-13 24490810
