Prevalence and characteristics of women with a history of abortion among women who became pregnant

Authors

  • Rebeca de Souza e Silva Universidade Federal de São Paulo; Departamento de Medicina Preventiva
  • Marta Camila Mendes de Oliveira Carneiro Universidade Federal de São Paulo; Departamento de Medicina Preventiva
  • Jefferson Drezett Hospital Pérola Byington; Núcleo de Violência Sexual e Aborto
  • Solange Andreoni Universidade Federal de São Paulo; Departamento de Medicina Preventiva

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.20046

Keywords:

induced abortion, spontaneous abortion, logistic models, reproductive health

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of women with history of induced abortion among those who became pregnant, living in Vila Mariana, São Paulo, in 2006. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study involving 555 women, aged 15-49 with history of pregnancy. The women were classified as being without abortion (68.5%), with spontaneous abortion (22.7%) or induced abortion (8.8%). Age, education, number of live births, difference of number of children from the desired, and acceptance of abortion comprised the initial multinomial logistic regression model to describe the profile of women. RESULTS: The odds ratio of having carried on without abortion induced abortion was 28.3 times (p<0.001) for those who had no children, 6.4 times (p<0.001) among those who accept abortion, and 4.9 times higher (p=0.002) in under 4 years of study, increased by 8% for each one year increment in age (p<0.001). The odds ratio of having a spontaneous miscarriage over without abortion was 15.0 times (p<0.001) for those who had no children; 3.6 times higher (p=0.055) in under 4 years of study, increased by 5% per year of age (p<0.001) and acceptance of abortion practice was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The main factor for the occurrence of abortion was not having live births, indicating a tendency of abortions to occur in the early reproductive life. Less education and acceptance of the practice were other variables associated with induced abortion. There was evidence of omission of the statement of abortion in the responses of the interviewees.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Hardy E, Costa R, Rodrigues T, Moraes T. Características atuais associadas à história de aborto provocado. Rev Saúde Pública,1994;28(1):82-5.

Fusco CLB, Andreoni S, Silva RS. Epidemiologia do aborto inseguro em uma população em situação de pobreza: Favela Inajar de Souza, São Paulo. Rev Bras Epidemiol 2008; 11(1):78-88.

Fonseca W, Misago C, Correia LL, Parente JAM, Oliveira FC. Determinantes do aborto provocado entre mulheres admitidas em hospitais em localidade da região Nordeste do Brasil. Rev Saúde Pública, 1996;30(1):13-18.

Osis MJD, Hardy E, Faundes A, Rodrigues T. Dificuldades para obter informações da população de mulheres sobre aborto ilegal. Rev Saúde Pública, 1996;30(5):444-51.

Silva RS. O uso da Técnica de Resposta ao Aza r(TRA) na caracterização do aborto ilegal. Rev Bras Estudos Pop, 1993;10(1/2):41-56.

Alan Guttmacher Institute. Aborto clandestino: una realidad latinoamericana. Alan Guttmacher Institute [monografia en la Internet]. 1994 [citado 2006 Jul 13]. Disponível em: http://www.womenslinkworldwide.org/pdf/sp_proj_laicia_amicus_app_AGISP.pdf

Singh S, Wulf D. Estimated Levels of Induced Abortion in Six Latin American Countries. International Family Planning Perspectives,1994;20:4-13.

Corrêa S, Freitas A. Atualizando os dados sobrea interrupção voluntária da gravidez no Brasil. Estudos Feministas, 1997;5(2):389-95.

Silva RS. Padrões de aborto provocado na Grande São Paulo, Brasil. Rev Saúde Pública.1998; 32(1):7-17.

Silva RS, Fusco CLB. Saúde Reprodutiva, fecundidade e aborto provocado: análise de seis inquéritos populacionais realizados em São Paulo, Brasil. Rev Saúde Ética Justiça. 2008;13(2):79-94.

Olinto MTA, Moreira Filho DC. Estimativa de aborto induzido: comparação entre duas metodologias. Rev Panam Salud Publica, 2004;15(5):331-6.

Diniz D. Aborto e Saúde Pública: 20 anos de pesquisas no Brasil. CFEMEA - Centro Feminista de Estudos e Assessoria [documento online]. 2009 [acesso em 05 jan 2009]. Disponível em: http://www.cfemea.org.br/noticias/detalhes.asp?IDNoticia=691

Brasil. Código Penal: Decreto lei n. 1.004, de21 de outubro de 1969. 4a ed. São Paulo: Saraiva; 1971.

Cardoso MRA. Comparação entre três métodos de amostragem que visam à estimação da cobertura vacinal [dissertação]. São Paulo: Faculdade de Saúde Pública da Universidade de São Paulo; 1990.

Fundação Sistema Estadual de Análise de Dados. Secretaria de Economia e Planejamento. Perfil Municipal de São Paulo, 2009 [documento online]. 2009. Disponível em: http://www.seade.gov.br/produtos/perfil/perfil.php

Santos EBC. Aborto induzido: ocorrência e características no antigo subdistrito de Vila Madalena, São Paulo, Brasil – 2000 [dissertação]. São Paulo: Universidade Federal de São Paulo. Escola Paulista de Medicina; 2005.

Sociedade Civil Bem-Estar Familiar no Brasil - BEMFAM. Relatório Preliminar. USA: London International Group; 1998.

Sorrentino SR. Aborto inseguro. In: Rede Nacional Feminista de Saúde e Direitos Reprodutivos. Saúde da mulher e direitos reprodutivos: dossiês. São Paulo: Rede Nacional Feminista de Saúde e Direitos Reprodutivos, 2001. p. 41-72.

Barini R, Couto E, Mota MM, Santos CTM, Leiber SR, Batista SCS. Fatores associados ao aborto espontâneo recorrente. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet, 2000;22(4): 217-23.

Adesse L, Monteiro MFG. Magnitude do aborto no Brasil: Aspectos epidemiológicos e sócio-culturais. Instituto de Medicina Social – IMS [documento online]. 2008. Disponível em http://www.ipas.org.br/arquivos/factsh_mag.pdf 04janeiro 2008.

Silva RS, Vieira EM. Aborto provocado: sua dimensão e características entre mulheres solteiras e casadas da cidade de São Paulo, Brasil. Cad Saúde Pública, 2009;25(1):179-87.

Sihvo S, Bajos N, Ducot B, Kaminski M. Women’slife cycle and abortion decision in unintended pregnancies. J Epidemiol Community Health,2003; 57(8):601-5.

Downloads

Published

2012-04-01

Issue

Vol. 22 No. 1 (2012)

Section

Original Research

License

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL  PUBLISHERS

 

Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:

 

Publishers should:

 

  • Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
  • Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
  • Protect intellectual property and copyright
  • Foster editorial independence

 

Publishers should work with journal editors to:

 

  • Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:

–         Editorial  independence

–         Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research

–         Authorship

–         Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards

–         Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor

–         Appeals and complaints

  • Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
  • Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
  • Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
  • Maintain the integrity of the academic record
  • Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
  • Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
  • Publish content on a timely basis