Do Social Determinants of Health Affect Discretionary Abortion? A Hospital Focused Cross-sectional Study

Abstract

Aim: It was aimed to determine the level of voluntary abortions and related factors in women over the age of 49 who applied to the obstetrics and gynecology outpatient clinic in a secondary public hospital and were examined. Material and Method: Patients who applied to the secondary care state hospital between January 15 and March 15, 2021, were asked whether they had an optional abortion. In addition, the patients’ socio-demographic, bio-demographic, and socioeconomic characteristics were recorded by face-to-face interview technique. Results: When women living in villages are taken as reference, optional abortions are 7,954 (CI: 3,625–17,449) times for women living in the city center, 2,990 times for those living in a nuclear family when living in an extended family is taken as reference, 7,719 times for those who have social health insurance as a reference (CI: 3,614–16,487) times, when the total income level of people entering the house is taken as reference, it is 6,637 (CI: 3,059–14,401) times more for those who are inadequate. Conclusion: Social service policies should be arranged to increase access to health services and prevention methods in the eastern regions of Turkey.

Keywords

• voluntary abortion
• abortion
• sociocultural factors

References

1. 1. Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidance for Health Systems. 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK138196/; 2012 [accessed 19.01.22]
2. 2. Clinical Practice Handbook for Safe Abortion. Geneva: World Health Organization; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/ NBK190095/; 2014 [accessed 19.01.22]
3. 3. Askew I, Weinberger M, Dasgupta A, Darroch J, Smith E, Stover J, et al. Harmonizing Methods for Estimating the Impact of Contraceptive Use on Unintended Pregnancy, Abortion, and Maternal Health. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2017 Dec 28;5(4):658-667.
4. 4. Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies; http:// www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/eng/tdhs2018/TDHS_2018_ main_report.pdf.; 2018 [accessed 17.01.22]
5. 5. TRA1 Level 2 Regional Plan (2014–2023); Planning Process and Scope; https://jag.journalagent.com/planlama/ pdfs/PLAN-18189-OPINION_LETTER-TOY.pdf. 2021 [accessed 17.01.22]
6. 6. Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies; http:// www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/eng/tdhs08/TDHS-2008_Main_ Report.pdf. 2008 [accessed 17.01.22]
7. 7. Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies; http:// www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/eng/tdhs13/report/TDHS_2013_ main.report.pdf. 2013 [accessed 17.01.22]
8. 8. Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies; http:// www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/eng/tdhs08/TDHS-2008_Main_ Report.pdf. 2008 [accessed 17.01.22]

9. 9. Wang C. Induced abortion patterns and determinants among married women in China: 1979 to 2010. Reprod Health Matters. 2014,22(43):159-68.
10. 10. Chae S, Desai S, Crowell M, Sedgh G, Singh S. Characteristics of women obtaining induced abortions in selected low- and middleincome countries. PLoSOne. 2017 Mar 29;12(3):e0172976.
11. 11. Çavlin A, Tezcan S, Ergöçmen B. Abortion from Women’s Perspective, Population Science Journal. 2016;34:51-67.