衡量敏感行为的密切联系的第三方报告的评估:测量埃塞俄比亚和乌干达堕胎发生率的红唇法。

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q2 DEMOGRAPHY
Studies in Family Planning Pub Date : 2021-12-01 Epub Date: 2021-11-11 DOI:10.1111/sifp.12180
Margaret Giorgio, Elizabeth Sully, Doris W Chiu
{"title":"衡量敏感行为的密切联系的第三方报告的评估:测量埃塞俄比亚和乌干达堕胎发生率的红唇法。","authors":"Margaret Giorgio,&nbsp;Elizabeth Sully,&nbsp;Doris W Chiu","doi":"10.1111/sifp.12180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Indirect estimation techniques are important tools for measuring sensitive and stigmatized behaviors. This includes third-party reporting methods, which have become increasingly common in the field of abortion measurement, where direct survey approaches notoriously lead to underreporting. This paper provides the first in-depth assessment of one of the most widely used of these techniques in the field of abortion measurement: the confidante method. We outline six key assumptions behind the confidante method and describe how violations of these assumptions can bias resulting estimates. Using data from modules added to the performance monitoring for action surveys in Uganda and Ethiopia in 2018, we compute one-year abortion incidence estimates using the confidante method. We also perform a validation check, using the method to estimate intrauterine device /implant use. Our results revealed implementation problems in both settings. Several of the method's foundational assumptions were violated, and efforts to adjust for these violations either failed or only partially addressed the resulting bias. Our validation check also failed, resulting in a gross overestimate of intrauterine device/implant use. These results have implications more broadly for the potential biases that can be introduced in using third-party reporting of close ties to measure other sensitive or stigmatized behaviors.</p>","PeriodicalId":22069,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Family Planning","volume":"52 4","pages":"513-538"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d6/80/SIFP-52-513.PMC9298764.pdf","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Assessment of Third-Party Reporting of Close Ties to Measure Sensitive Behaviors: The Confidante Method to Measure Abortion Incidence in Ethiopia and Uganda.\",\"authors\":\"Margaret Giorgio,&nbsp;Elizabeth Sully,&nbsp;Doris W Chiu\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/sifp.12180\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Indirect estimation techniques are important tools for measuring sensitive and stigmatized behaviors. This includes third-party reporting methods, which have become increasingly common in the field of abortion measurement, where direct survey approaches notoriously lead to underreporting. This paper provides the first in-depth assessment of one of the most widely used of these techniques in the field of abortion measurement: the confidante method. We outline six key assumptions behind the confidante method and describe how violations of these assumptions can bias resulting estimates. Using data from modules added to the performance monitoring for action surveys in Uganda and Ethiopia in 2018, we compute one-year abortion incidence estimates using the confidante method. We also perform a validation check, using the method to estimate intrauterine device /implant use. Our results revealed implementation problems in both settings. Several of the method's foundational assumptions were violated, and efforts to adjust for these violations either failed or only partially addressed the resulting bias. Our validation check also failed, resulting in a gross overestimate of intrauterine device/implant use. These results have implications more broadly for the potential biases that can be introduced in using third-party reporting of close ties to measure other sensitive or stigmatized behaviors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22069,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Family Planning\",\"volume\":\"52 4\",\"pages\":\"513-538\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d6/80/SIFP-52-513.PMC9298764.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Family Planning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/sifp.12180\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/11/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DEMOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Family Planning","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/sifp.12180","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

间接估计技术是衡量敏感和污名化行为的重要工具。这包括第三方报告方法,这在堕胎测量领域变得越来越普遍,直接调查方法众所周知会导致少报。这篇论文提供了在流产测量领域最广泛使用的这些技术之一的第一次深入评估:红颜法。我们概述了红颜知己方法背后的六个关键假设,并描述了违反这些假设如何使结果估计产生偏差。利用2018年乌干达和埃塞俄比亚行动调查绩效监测中添加的模块数据,我们使用红颜知己方法计算了一年的堕胎发生率估计数。我们还进行了验证检查,使用该方法估计宫内节育器/植入物的使用。我们的结果揭示了两种情况下的执行问题。该方法的几个基本假设被违反了,对这些违反进行调整的努力要么失败了,要么只是部分地解决了由此产生的偏见。我们的验证检查也失败了,导致对宫内节育器/植入物使用的严重高估。这些结果对使用第三方密切关系报告来衡量其他敏感或污名化行为时可能引入的潜在偏见具有更广泛的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

An Assessment of Third-Party Reporting of Close Ties to Measure Sensitive Behaviors: The Confidante Method to Measure Abortion Incidence in Ethiopia and Uganda.

An Assessment of Third-Party Reporting of Close Ties to Measure Sensitive Behaviors: The Confidante Method to Measure Abortion Incidence in Ethiopia and Uganda.

An Assessment of Third-Party Reporting of Close Ties to Measure Sensitive Behaviors: The Confidante Method to Measure Abortion Incidence in Ethiopia and Uganda.

An Assessment of Third-Party Reporting of Close Ties to Measure Sensitive Behaviors: The Confidante Method to Measure Abortion Incidence in Ethiopia and Uganda.

Indirect estimation techniques are important tools for measuring sensitive and stigmatized behaviors. This includes third-party reporting methods, which have become increasingly common in the field of abortion measurement, where direct survey approaches notoriously lead to underreporting. This paper provides the first in-depth assessment of one of the most widely used of these techniques in the field of abortion measurement: the confidante method. We outline six key assumptions behind the confidante method and describe how violations of these assumptions can bias resulting estimates. Using data from modules added to the performance monitoring for action surveys in Uganda and Ethiopia in 2018, we compute one-year abortion incidence estimates using the confidante method. We also perform a validation check, using the method to estimate intrauterine device /implant use. Our results revealed implementation problems in both settings. Several of the method's foundational assumptions were violated, and efforts to adjust for these violations either failed or only partially addressed the resulting bias. Our validation check also failed, resulting in a gross overestimate of intrauterine device/implant use. These results have implications more broadly for the potential biases that can be introduced in using third-party reporting of close ties to measure other sensitive or stigmatized behaviors.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
9.50%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Studies in Family Planning publishes public health, social science, and biomedical research concerning sexual and reproductive health, fertility, and family planning, with a primary focus on developing countries. Each issue contains original research articles, reports, a commentary, book reviews, and a data section with findings for individual countries from the Demographic and Health Surveys.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信