What is the relationship between contraceptive services and knowledge of abortion availability and legality? Evidence from a national sample of women and facilities in Ethiopia.

In Ethiopia, abortions are legal for minors and for rape, incest, foetal impairment or maternal disability. Knowledge of abortion legality and availability is low, and little effort has been made to disseminate this information for fear of invoking anti-abortion sentiment; instead, systems rely on health providers as information gatekeepers. This study explores how exposure to and interaction with family planning service delivery environment, specifically (1) availability of contraceptive and facility-based abortion services within 5 km of one's residence and (2) contact with a health provider in the past 12 months, relate to women's knowledge of the legality of accessing abortion services and of where to access facility-based abortion services. We used data from a nationally representative sample of 8719 women in Ethiopia and a linked health facility survey of 799 health facilities. Our outcome of interest was a categorical variable indicating if a woman had (1) knowledge of at least one legal ground for abortion, (2) knowledge of where to access abortion services, (3) knowledge of both or (4) knowledge of neither. We conducted multilevel, multinomial logistic regressions, stratified by residence. Approximately 60% of women had no knowledge of either a legal ground for abortion or a place to access services. Women who visited a health provider or who were visited by a health worker in the past 12 months were significantly more likely to know about abortion legality and availability. There were no differences based on whether women lived within 5 km of a facility that offered contraception and abortion services. We find that health workers are likely valuable sources of information; however, progress to disseminate information may be slowed if it relies on uptake of services and limited outreach. Efforts to train providers on legality and availability are critical, as is additional research on knowledge dissemination pathways.

Partner involvement in abortion trajectories and subsequent abortion safety in Nigeria and Côte d'Ivoire.

BACKGROUND: Unsafe abortions contribute to maternal mortality and morbidity worldwide, with disproportionate impacts in lower-income countries. Identifying factors associated with an elevated risk of experiencing an abortion under the most unsafe conditions is an important component of addressing this burden. The partner's role in obtaining a safe or unsafe abortion is not well understood. This study provides a quantitative assessment of the relationship between partner involvement and subsequent abortion safety. METHODS: The data are drawn from the PMA2020 female surveys and abortion follow-up surveys, fielded in Nigeria and Côte d'Ivoire between 2018 and 2020. The sample includes 1144 women in Nigeria and 347 women in Côte d'Ivoire who reported having ever experienced an abortion. We assess partner involvement in discussing the abortion decision and/or in selecting the method or source and evaluate the relationship between partner involvement and most unsafe abortion (using non-recommended methods from a non-clinical source) versus safe or less safe abortion, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: We find a strong association between experiencing any partner involvement and decreased odds of experiencing a most unsafe abortion (Nigeria: aOR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.26-0.45; Côte d'Ivoire: aOR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.16-0.47). Analyzing the two types of partner involvement separately, we find that partner involvement in the decision is associated with lower odds of most unsafe abortion in both countries (Nigeria: aOR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.39-0.72; Côte d'Ivoire: aOR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.19-0.60); partner involvement in selecting the method and/or source was only significantly associated with lower odds of most unsafe abortion in Nigeria (Nigeria: aOR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.39-0.72; Côte d'Ivoire: aOR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.32-1.32). CONCLUSION: In Nigeria and in Côte d'Ivoire, respondents whose partners were involved in their abortion trajectory experienced safer abortions than those whose partners were not involved. These findings suggest the potential importance of including men in education on safe abortion care and persistent need to make safe abortion accessible to all, regardless of partner support.

Social Network-Based Induced Abortion Incidence Estimation in Burkina Faso: Examining the Impact of the Network Generating Question.

Social network-based methods are increasingly used to estimate induced abortion incidence and investigate correlates. Approaches differ in the social tie definitions used to identify which social network members' abortion experiences respondents will report. This study compares the effect of using the "best friend" (closest female friend) versus "confidante" (specifying mutual sharing of personal information) definition on abortion incidence estimation. We use data from a nationally representative survey of women aged 15-49 in Burkina Faso (conducted in 2020-2021) where respondents were randomized into two versions of an abortion module, using different friend definitions. We computed abortion rate estimates by friend definition and adjusted for assumption violations (transmission bias, surrogate sample selection bias). Unadjusted incidence rates varied from 11.7 [4.1-19.2] abortions per 1,000 women to 15.6 [9.7-21.4], depending on friend definition. The confidante definition yielded higher adjusted estimates (36.2 [25.1-47.2]) than the best friend definition (17.0 [8.7-25.3]) due to greater transmission bias adjustment. Both estimates exceeded the respondent self-reported abortion incidence (4.0 [2.2-5.9]). Our results indicate that either friend definition produces higher incidence estimates than self-report but suggest a potential advantage for the "best friend" over the "confidante" definition given lower transmission bias. Further research should assess generalizability of these findings in other contexts.

Youth Relationships in the Era of COVID-19: A Mixed-Methods Study Among Adolescent Girls and Young Women in Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Measures to mitigate COVID-19's impact may inhibit development of healthy youth relationships, affecting partnership quality and sexual and reproductive health (SRH) outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study to understand how COVID-19 affected girls' and young women's relationships in Kenya. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression examined factors associated with relationship quality dynamics and SRH outcomes among 756 partnered adolescents aged 15-24 years. Qualitative data from in-depth interviews were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis to explore youth perceptions of how intimate relationships changed during COVID-19. RESULTS: Nearly three-quarters of youth described changes in relationship quality since COVID-19 began, with 24% reporting worsening. Reduced time with partners was the strongest predictor of changed relationship quality. Youth experiencing complete or partial COVID-19-related household income loss had heightened risk of deteriorating partnerships (relative risk ratio = 2.43 and 2.02; p < .05); those whose relationships worsened were more likely to experience recent intimate partner violence, relative to no relationship change (20.8% vs. 3.5%; p < .001). Qualitative analysis revealed how COVID-19 mitigation measures hindered intimate relationships, school closures accelerated marriage timelines, and economic hardships strained relationships, while increasing early pregnancy risk and girls' financial dependency on their partners. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 disrupted adolescent girls' and young women's romantic relationships, depriving some of partner emotional support and exposing others to sexual violence, early pregnancy, and economically motivated transactional relationships. Increased social support systems, including access to psychosocial services, are needed in low-income communities in Kilifi, Kisumu, and Nairobi, in particular the informal settlement areas, to mitigate COVID-19's consequences on girls' SRH.

Does the Impact of Motherhood on Women's Employment and Wages Differ for Women Who Plan Their Transition Into Motherhood?

Women's ability to control their fertility through contraception and abortion has been shown to contribute to improvements in education and employment. At the same time, their employment and wages decline substantially when they transition to motherhood. About one-third of births are unintended, and it is unknown whether the impact of motherhood on employment, hours, and wages is smaller for women who planned their transition into motherhood compared with those who did not. To explore this, we examine fixed-effects models that estimate labor market outcomes using panel data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1979-2014. We estimate models for Black and White women and find that the relationship between motherhood and employment is significantly more negative among White women who plan their transition into motherhood than among those who have an unplanned first birth. Among those who remain employed, we find that those with a planned first birth work fewer hours and have lower wages relative to those with unplanned births. We do not find significant evidence that the association between motherhood and labor market outcomes differs by fertility planning among Black women. Prior research shows how women's choices are structurally constrained by sociocultural norms and expectations and by a labor market that may not readily accommodate motherhood. In this context, our findings may reflect differences in women's motherhood and employment preferences and their ability to act on those preferences. Our analysis also makes a novel contribution to the large body of research that associates unplanned births with negative outcomes.

Investigating the early impact of the Trump Administration's Global Gag Rule on sexual and reproductive health service delivery in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: The Global Gag Rule (GGR), reinstated by President Trump in January 2017, makes non-U.S. non-governmental organizations ineligible for U.S. foreign assistance if they provide access to or information about abortion. While evidence suggests previous iterations of the GGR negatively impacted sexual and reproductive health outcomes, no studies have quantitatively assessed the impacts of the Trump administration's GGR. METHODS: We constructed a panel dataset of facilities (76% public) using 2017/2018 Performance Monitoring and Accountability 2020 service delivery point (SDP) surveys in Uganda. Based on information from stakeholder meetings, we classified districts as more or less exposed to the GGR; 45% (N = 34) of study districts were classified as "more exposed", which corresponded to 145 "more exposed" and 142 "less exposed" health facilities in our sample. We assessed changes in provision of long-acting reversible contraceptives, contraceptive stock-outs, mobile outreach services, engagement with community health workers (CHWs), service integration, and quality of care from 2017 (pre-GGR) to 2018 (post-GGR). Multivariable regression models were estimated, and difference-in-differences impact estimators were determined by calculating predicted probabilities from interaction terms for exposure and survey round. FINDINGS: We observed no immediate impact of the GGR on the provision of long-acting reversible contraceptives, contraceptive stock-outs, mobile outreach services, service integration, or quality of care. We did observe a significant impact of the policy on the average number of CHWs, with "more exposed" facilities engaging 3.8 fewer CHWs post-GGR (95% CI:-7.31,-0.32). CONCLUSIONS: The reduction in CHWs could reduce contraceptive use and increase unintended pregnancies in Uganda. The lack of other significant findings may not be surprising given the short post-GGR observation window. Rapid organizational responses and stopgap funding from foreign governments may have mitigated any immediate impacts on service delivery in the short term. The true impact may not be felt for many years, as stopgap funding potentially ebbs and service providers adapt to new funding environments.