Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:45:15.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Increasing misreporting levels of induced abortion in Turkey: is this due to social desirability bias?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2019

Melike Saraç  and
İsmet Koç
Melike Saraç*
Affiliation:
Department of Social Research Methodology, Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, Ankara, Turkey
İsmet Koç
Affiliation:
Department of Demography, Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, Ankara, Turkey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Women tend to under-report or misreport their abortion experiences, mainly because abortion is considered a sensitive issue for cultural, religious, political or other reasons in many countries across the world. Turkey, where induced abortion is an increasingly sensitive issue due to intense statements against induced abortion on religious grounds by influential politicians, and a hidden agenda to prohibit the practice, especially in public health facilities, in recent years, is no exception. This study focused on the increase in level of misreporting of induced abortion in Turkey and its link to social desirability bias using pooled data from 1993 and 2013 Turkish Demographic and Health Surveys. A probabilistic classification model was used to classify women’s reported abortions. The findings confirmed that the level of misreporting of induced abortions has increased from 18% to 53% among all terminated pregnancies over the period 1993–2013 in Turkey. This marked increase, especially among women in the lower socioeconomic sections of society, may be largely associated with the prevailing political environment, and increase in social stigmatization against induced abortion in Turkey over recent decades.

Keywords

Social desirability biasMisreportingInduced abortion
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , March 2020 , pp. 213 - 229
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adali, T, Cavlin, A and Berktas, E (2015) İsteyerek ve Kendiliğinden Düşüklerin Yaygınlığı ve Düşükleri Etkileyen Faktörler [The prevalence of spontaneous and induced abortions and the factors affecting them]. In 2013 Nüfus ve Sağlık Araştırması İleri Analiz Çalışması [Further Analysis of TDHS-2013]. Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, Ankara. ISBN 978-975-491-412-2. http://www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/tnsa2013/rapor/TNSA2013_ilerianaliz.pdf (accessed 25 May 2019).Google Scholar
Adali, T, Koç, I and Eryurt, MA (2014) The spontaneous and induced abortions. In 2013 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey (TDHS-2013). ISBN 978-975-491-389-7. Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, Ankara. http://www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/tnsa2013/rapor/TDHS_2013_main.report.pdf (accessed 25 May 2019).Google Scholar
Altun, A (1995) Türkiye’de İstemli Düşüğün Boyutları. [The aspects of induced abortion in Turkey.] MA Dissertation. Institute of Population Studies, Hacettepe University, Ankara.Google Scholar
Anderson, BA, Katus, K, Puur, A and Silver, BD (1994) The validity of survey responses on abortion: evidence from Estonia. Demography 31(1), 115–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Astbury-Ward, E, Parry, O and Carnwell, R (2012) Stigma, abortion, and disclosure– findings from a qualitative study. Journal of Sexual Medicine 9(12), 3137–3147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barreto, T, Campbell, OM, Davies, JL, Fauveau, V, Filippi, VG, Graham, WJ, et al. (1992) Investigating induced abortion in developing countries: methods and problems. Studies in Family Planning 23(3), 159–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Basu, AM (2003) The Sociocultural and Political Aspects of Abortion: Global Perspectives. Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Bendavid, E, Avila, P and Miller, G (2011) United States aid policy and induced abortion in sub-Saharan Africa. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 89(12), 873–880.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradburn, NM, Sudman, M, Blair, E, Locander, W, Miles, C, Singer, E and Stocking, C (1980) Improving interview method and questionnaire design: response effects to threatening questions in survey research. Social Forces 59(1), 325–326.Google Scholar
Casterline, JB (1989) Collecting data on pregnancy loss: a review of evidence from the World Fertility Survey. Studies in Family Planning 20(2), 81–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cavlin, A, Tezcan, S and Ergocmen, B (2012) Kadınların Bakış Açısından Kürtaj [Women’s perspective on induced abortion]. Turkish Journal of Population Studies 34(1), 51–67.Google Scholar
Cavlin, BA (2007) Re-placing induced abortion and contraception: a special focus on ethno-cultural differences in the cases of Turkey and selected Central Asian States. PhD Dissertation, Institute of Population Studies, Hacettepe University, Ankara.Google Scholar
Coutts, E and Jann, B (2011) Sensitive questions in online surveys: experimental results for the Randomized Response Technique (RRT) and the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT). Sociological Methods & Research 40(1), 169–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, W (1989) Interviewing style and respondent behavior: an experimental study of the survey interview. Sociological Methods & Research 16(2), 309–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ergocmen, BA, Koç, I, Senlet, P, Yigit, EK and Roman, E (2004) A closer look at traditional contraceptive use in Turkey. European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care 9(4), 221–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fu, H, Darroch, JE, Henshaw, SK and Kolb, E (1998) Measuring the extent of abortion underreporting in the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Family Planning Perspectives 30(3), 128–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groves, RM and Khan, RL (1979) Surveys by Telephone: A National Comparison with Personal Interviews. Academic Press Inc., London.Google Scholar
Gursoy, A (1996) Abortion in Turkey: a matter of state, family or individual decision. Social Science & Medicine 42(4), 531–542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammerslough, CR (1987) Correcting Survey-Based Contraceptive Failure Rates for Abortion Under-Reporting. Princeton University, Princeton.Google Scholar
Holbrook, AL, Green, MC and Krosnick, JA (2003) Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires. Public Opinion Quarterly 67(1), 79–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HUIPS (1994) 1993 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey. Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies and Ministry of Health, Ankara.Google Scholar
HUIPS (2004) 2003 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey. Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, European Union and Ministry of Health, Ankara.Google Scholar
HUIPS (2014) 2013 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey. Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, Ministry of Development and TUBITAK, Ankara.Google Scholar
Huntington, D, Mensch, B and Toubia, N (1993) A new approach to eliciting information about induced abortion. Studies in Family Planning 24(2), 120–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jagannathan, R (2001) Relying on surveys to understand abortion behavior: some cautionary evidence. American Journal of Public Health 91(11), 1825–1831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnston, HB, Edmeades, J, Nyblade, L, Pearson, E, Serbanescu, F and Stupp, P (2010) Three approaches to improving the use of face-to-face interviews to measure abortion. In Singh, S, Remez, L and Tartaglione, A (eds) Methodologies for Estimating Abortion Incidence and Abortion-Related Morbidity: A Review. Guttmacher Institute and International Union for the Scientific Study of Population.Google Scholar
Jones, EF and Forrest, JD (1992) Underreporting of abortion in surveys of U.S. women: 1976 to 1988. Demography 29(1), 113–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, RK and Kost, K (2007) Underreporting of induced and spontaneous abortion in the United States: an analysis of the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Studies in Family Planning 38(3), 187–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keogh, SC, Kimaro, G, Muganyizi, P, Philbin, J, Kahwa, A, Ngadaya, E and Bankole, A (2015) Incidence of induced abortion and post-abortion care in Tanzania. PloS One 10(9), e0133933.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koç, I and Saraç, M (2017) The family formation process among couples having children with assisted reproductive techniques in Turkey. In Kapella, O, Schneider, NF, and Rost, H (eds) Familie-Bildung-Migration. Verlag Barbara Budrich, Berlin.Google Scholar
Kreuter, F, Presser, S and Tourangeau, R (2008) Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR, and web surveys: the effects of mode and question sensitivity. Public Opinion Quarterly 72(5), 847–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krumpal, I (2011) Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Quality & Quantity 47(4), 2025–2047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krysan, M and Couper, MP (2003) Race in the live and the virtual interview: racial deference, social desirability and activation effects in attitude surveys. Social Psychology Quarterly 66(4), 364–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lara, D, Strickler, J, Olavarrieta, CD and Ellertson, C (2004) Measuring induced abortion in Mexico: a comparison of four methodologies. Sociological Methods & Research 32(4), 529–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, RM (1995) Doing Research on Sensitive Topics. Sage, London.Google Scholar
Lensvelt-Mulders, G (2008) Surveying sensitive topics. In International Handbook of Survey Methodology. Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, pp. 461–478.Google Scholar
London, K and Williams, L (1990) A comparison of abortion underreporting in an in-person interview and self-administered questionnaire. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, KA, O’Neil, ML, Tekdemir, D and Foster, AM (2017) It was as if society didn’t want a woman to get an abortion: a qualitative study in Istanbul, Turkey. Contraception 95(2), 154–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnani, RJ, Rutenberg, N and McCann, HG (1996) Detecting induced abortions from reports of pregnancy terminations in DHS Calendar Data. Studies in Family Planning 27(1), 36–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mavletova, A (2013) Data quality in PC and mobile web surveys. Social Science Computer Review 31(6), 725–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mavletova, A and Couper, MP (2013) Sensitive topics in PC web and mobile web surveys: is there a difference? Survey Research Methods 7(3), 191–205.Google Scholar
Medeiros, M & Diniz, D (2012) Recommendations for abortion surveys using the ballot-box technique. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva 17(7), 1721–1724.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mosher, WD (1985) Reproductive impairments in the United States, 1965-1982. Demography 22(3), 415–430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muchova, L (2013) The problems with linking specific foreign policy to abortion in developing countries: critical review of Eran Bendavid, Patrick Avila & Grant Miller, United States aid policy and induced abortion in sub-Saharan Africa. In World Health Organization Bulletin Online, 2011. IORG Young Scholars Series the Problems with Linking No. 3.Google Scholar
O’Neil, ML (2017) The availability of abortion at state hospitals in Turkey: a national study. Contraception 95(2), 148–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Neil, ML, Aldanmaz, B, Quiles, RMQ and Kılınc, FR (2016) Yasal Ancak Ulasilabilir Degil: Türkiye’deki Devlet Hastanelerinde Kürtaj Hizmetleri [Legal but not accessible: induced abortion services in public hospital in Turkey]. Research conducted by Kadir Has University Istanbul Turkey. https://www.khas.edu.tr/w243/files/documents/abortion-tr.pdf (accessed 25 May 2019).Google Scholar
Ong, AD and Weiss, DJ (2000) The impact of anonymity on responses to sensitive questions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30(8), 1691–1708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozdemir, G (2012) Başbakan Erdoğan: Kürtajı ‘cinayet’ olarak görüyorum [Prime Minister Erdoğan: I see Abortion as ‘Murder’]. http://www.milliyet.com.tr/basbakan-erdogan-kurtaji-cinayet-olarak-goruyorum/siyaset/siyasetdetay/25.05.2012/1545183/default.htm (accessed 31 October 2018).Google Scholar
Potter, RG, Ford, K and Moots, B (1975) Competition between spontaneous and induced abortion. Demography 12(1), 129–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rasinski, KA, Baldwin, AK, Willis, GB and Jobe, JB (1994) Risk and loss perceptions associated with survey reporting of sensitive behaviors. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Rossier, C (2003) Estimating induced abortion rates: a review. Studies in Family Planning 34(2), 87–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saraç, M and Koç, I (2017) Prevalence and risk factors of infertility in Turkey: evidence from demographic and health surveys, 1993-2013. Journal of Biosocial Science 50(4), 472–490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, R and Lindberg, L (2016) Measurement and mismeasurement of abortion and other pregnancy outcomes in the national survey of family growth. Presentation at the Population Association of America Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Senlet, P, Cagatay, L, Ergin, J and Mathis, J (2001a) Bridging the gap: integrating family planning with abortion services in Turkey. International Family Planning Perspectives 27(2), 90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senlet, P, Curtis, SL, Mathis, J and Raggers, H (2001b) The role of changes in contraceptive use in the decline of induced abortion in Turkey. Studies in Family Planning 32(1), 41–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shah, N, Hossain, N, Noonari, M and Khan, NH (2011) Maternal mortality and morbidity of unsafe abortion in a university teaching hospital of Karachi, Pakistan. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association 61(6), 582–582.Google Scholar
Stuart, GS and Grimes, DA (2009) Social desirability bias in family planning studies: a neglected problem. Contraception 80(2), 108–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tennekoon, V (2017) Counting unreported abortions: a binomial-thinned zero-inflated Poisson model. Demographic Research 36, 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tezcan, S and Omran, AR (1981) Prevalence and reporting of induced abortion in Turkey: two survey techniques. Studies in Family Planning 12(6/7), 262–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tierney, KI (2017) Missing cases: an evaluation of abortion underreporting in add health. Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, R,Rips, LJ and Rasinski, K (2000) The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tourangeau, R and Yan, T (2007) Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin 133(5), 859–833.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Udry, JR, Gaughan, M, Schwingl, PJ and van den Berg, BJ (1996) A medical record linkage analysis of abortion underreporting. Family Planning Perspectives 28(5), 228–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
USNSFG (2018) National Survey of Family Growth 2015-2017, Public-Use Data File Documentation. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Centre for Health Statistics. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nsfg/NSFG_2015_2017_UserGuide_MainText.pdf (accessed 25 May 2019).Google Scholar
WHO (1987) Protocol for Hospital-Based Descriptive Studies of Mortality, Morbidity Related to Induced Abortion. WHO Task Force on Safety and Efficacy of Fertility Regulating Methods. Project 86912. WHO, Geneva.Google Scholar
Zamanian, M, Baneshi, MR, Haghdoost, A and Zolala, F (2016) Estimating the visibility rate of abortion: a case study of Kerman, Iran. BMJ Open 6(10), e012761.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed