Advertisement

Predictive model of repeat induced abortion in Hungary

  • Zoltan Kozinszky
  • Iván Devosa
  • János Sikovanyecz
  • Dávid Szabó
  • Zoltán Pál
  • Katalin Barabás
  • Attila Pál
Research Article
  • 58 Downloads

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

Keywords

Repeat abortion Contraception Logistic regression model Questionnaire survey 

References

  1. [1]
    Hungarian Central Statistical Office (2006) Hungarian Demographic Year Book. Hungarian Central Statistical Office, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  2. [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 6:145–152Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Kamarás F (1999) Fertility and family surveys in countries of the ECE region (Standard country report). United Nations, New York and GenevaGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    United Nations (2006) Demographic Year Book. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Millar WJ, Wadhera S, Henshaw SK (1997) Repeat abortions in Canada, 1975-1993. Fam Plann Perspect 29:20–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Institute AG. Facts in brief: induced abortion in the United States. Available at: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
  7. [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 11:30–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Berger C, Gold D, Andres D, Gillett P, Kinch R (1984) Repeat abortion: Is it a problem? Fam Plann Perspect 16:70–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Westfall JM, Kallail KJ (1995). Repeat abortion and use of primary care health services. Fam Plann Perspect 27:162–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Freeman EW, Rickels K, Huggins GR, Garcia CR, Polin J (1980) Emotional distress patterns among women having first or repeat abortions. Obstet Gynecol 55:630–636PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Bajos N, Leridon H, Goulard H, Oustry P, Job-Spira N (2003) Contraception from accessibility to efficiency. Hum Reprod 18:994–999PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Glasier A (1998) Safety of emergency contraception. J Am Med Women Assoc 53:219–221Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Goulard H, Moreau C, Gilbert F, Job-Spira N, Bajos N (2006) Contraceptive failures and determinants of emergency contraceptive use. Contraception 74:208–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Grossmann R (2001) Emergency contraception pill can prevent abortion. Am J Public Health 97:1137–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [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 71:202–207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [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 333:1517–1521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Oddens B (1996) The determinants of contraceptive use. Eburon, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (1989) Applied logistic regression. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Holmgren K (1994) Repeat abortion and contraceptive use. Report from an interview study in Stockholm. Gynecol Obstet Invest 37:254–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [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 22:2422–2427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Skjeldestad FE (1994). The incidence of repeat induced abortion -a prospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 73:706–710PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [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 27:77–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© © Versita Warsaw and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zoltan Kozinszky
    • 1
    • 2
  • Iván Devosa
    • 3
    • 4
  • János Sikovanyecz
    • 2
  • Dávid Szabó
    • 2
  • Zoltán Pál
    • 2
  • Katalin Barabás
    • 3
  • Attila Pál
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyUniversity Hospital of Northern NorwayTromsøNorway
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of General MedicineUniversity of SzegedSzegedHungary
  3. 3.Institute of Behaviour Science, Section of Behaviour Science, Faculty of General MedicineUniversity of SzegedSzegedHungary
  4. 4.Applications of Informatics Department, Juhász Gyula Faculty of EducationUniversity of SzegedSzegedHungary

Personalised recommendations