Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Predictive model of repeat induced abortion in Hungary

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Central European Journal of Medicine

Abstract

Background

Contraceptive and sociodemographic risks of repeat induced abortion have not yet been interpreted in Central Eastern Europe.

Methods

A consecutive series of women requesting initial (n=647) or repeat (n=553) artificial abortion were surveyed by means of a questionnaire at a Hungarian university teaching hospital in Szeged, in 2005 and 2006. Self-reported demographic characteristics, attitudes and habits regarding contraceptives were assessed as potential correlates of repeat induced abortion in multivariate logistic regression.

Results

Reliable contraceptive methods were applied slightly less frequently in case of repeat versus first abortion seekers (21.0% vs. 20.1%, P=0.72, [odds ratio (OR) = 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.80–1.40]). Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for undergoing repeat versus first abortion increased significantly with age (1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07–1.14), more children (AOR: 2.66, 95% CI: 1.57–4.50), secondary education compared to the tertiary level (AOR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.08–1.30). A better knowledge of the fertile period of the menstrual cycle was present among women who had had previous abortion (AOR=2.05, 95% CI 1.37–3.05).

Conclusions

Attitude improvement towards modern contraception and promotion of knowledge of correct use of contraceptives among women with reproductive ages may lead to the prevention of recurrent abortion more effectively. EC: emergency contraceptive pill; NS: not significant

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hungarian Central Statistical Office (2006) Hungarian Demographic Year Book. Hungarian Central Statistical Office, Budapest

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kozinszky Z, Boda K, Bartfai Gy (2001) Determinants of abortion among women undergoing artificial abortion using logistic regression model. Eur J Contr Reprod Health Care 6:145–152

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kamarás F (1999) Fertility and family surveys in countries of the ECE region (Standard country report). United Nations, New York and Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  4. United Nations (2006) Demographic Year Book. United Nations, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Millar WJ, Wadhera S, Henshaw SK (1997) Repeat abortions in Canada, 1975-1993. Fam Plann Perspect 29:20–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Institute AG. Facts in brief: induced abortion in the United States. Available at: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

  7. Steinhoff PG, Smith RG, Palmore JA, Diamond M, Chung CS (1979) Women who obtain repeat abortions: a study based on record linkage. Fam Plann Perspect 11:30–38

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Berger C, Gold D, Andres D, Gillett P, Kinch R (1984) Repeat abortion: Is it a problem? Fam Plann Perspect 16:70–77

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Westfall JM, Kallail KJ (1995). Repeat abortion and use of primary care health services. Fam Plann Perspect 27:162–165

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Freeman EW, Rickels K, Huggins GR, Garcia CR, Polin J (1980) Emotional distress patterns among women having first or repeat abortions. Obstet Gynecol 55:630–636

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bajos N, Leridon H, Goulard H, Oustry P, Job-Spira N (2003) Contraception from accessibility to efficiency. Hum Reprod 18:994–999

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Glasier A (1998) Safety of emergency contraception. J Am Med Women Assoc 53:219–221

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Goulard H, Moreau C, Gilbert F, Job-Spira N, Bajos N (2006) Contraceptive failures and determinants of emergency contraceptive use. Contraception 74:208–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Grossmann R (2001) Emergency contraception pill can prevent abortion. Am J Public Health 97:1137–1138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Moreau C, Bouyer J, Goulard H, Bajos N (2005) The remaining barriers to the use of emergency contraception: perception of pregnancy risk by women undergoing induced abortions Contraception 71:202–207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wilcox AJ, Weinberg CR, Baird DD (1995) Timing of sexual intercourse in relation to ovulation. Effects on the probability of conception, survival of the pregnancy, and sex of the baby. N Engl J Med 333:1517–1521

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Oddens B (1996) The determinants of contraceptive use. Eburon, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (1989) Applied logistic regression. John Wiley and Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. Holmgren K (1994) Repeat abortion and contraceptive use. Report from an interview study in Stockholm. Gynecol Obstet Invest 37:254–259

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Moreau C, Trussell J, G. Rodriguez, Bajos N, Bouyer J (2007) Contraceptive failure rates in France: results from a population-based survey. Hum Reprod 22:2422–2427

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Skjeldestad FE (1994). The incidence of repeat induced abortion -a prospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 73:706–710

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Garg M, Singh M, Mansour D (2001) Peri-abortion contraceptive care: Can we reduce the incidence of repeat abortions? J Fam Plann Repr H Care 27:77–80

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital of Northern Norway, Tromsø, Sykehusveien 10, N-9038, Norway

    Zoltan Kozinszky

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of General Medicine, University of Szeged, Semmelweis u. 1., H-6726, Szeged, Hungary

    Zoltan Kozinszky, János Sikovanyecz, Dávid Szabó, Zoltán Pál & Attila Pál

  3. Institute of Behaviour Science, Section of Behaviour Science, Faculty of General Medicine, University of Szeged, Szentháromság u. 5., H-6720, Szeged, Hungary

    Iván Devosa & Katalin Barabás

  4. Applications of Informatics Department, Juhász Gyula Faculty of Education, University of Szeged, Boldogasszony sgt. 6., H-6725, Szeged, Hungary

    Iván Devosa

Authors
  1. Zoltan Kozinszky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Iván Devosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. János Sikovanyecz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dávid Szabó
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zoltán Pál
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Katalin Barabás
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Attila Pál
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zoltan Kozinszky.

About this article

Cite this article

Kozinszky, Z., Devosa, I., Sikovanyecz, J. et al. Predictive model of repeat induced abortion in Hungary. cent.eur.j.med 6, 701–709 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2478/s11536-011-0080-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s11536-011-0080-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation