| Literature DB >> 25024929 |
Bosede O Awoyemi1, Jacob Novignon2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While induced abortion is considered to be illegal and socially unacceptable in Nigeria, it is still practiced by many women in the country. Poor family planning and unsafe abortion practices have daunting effects on maternal health. For instance, Nigeria is on the verge of not meeting the Millennium development goals on maternal health due to high maternal mortality ratio, estimated to be about 630 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. Recent evidences have shown that a major factor in this trend is the high incidence of abortion in the country. The objective of this paper is, therefore, to investigate the factors determining the demand for abortion and post-abortion care in Ibadan city of Nigeria.Entities:
Keywords: Abortion; Nigeria; Post abortion care; Probit
Year: 2014 PMID: 25024929 PMCID: PMC4094210 DOI: 10.1186/s13561-014-0003-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Econ Rev ISSN: 2191-1991
Variable description
| Dummy for abortion which takes the value of 1 if a woman aborted a baby and 0 otherwise | |
| Dummy for post abortion care which takes the value of 1 if the respondent sought post abortion care and 0 otherwise | |
| Log of total income of respondent | |
| Dummy for education of respondent which takes the value of 1 if attained any formal level of educated and 0 otherwise | |
| Dummy for mother's education which takes the value of 1 if attained any formal level of educated and 0 otherwise | |
| Dummy for father's education which takes the value of 1 if attained any formal level of educated and 0 otherwise | |
| Dummy for marital status of respondents which takes the value of 1 if currently married and 0 otherwise | |
| Actual age of the respondents reported in years | |
| Square of respondent's age | |
| A categorical variable capturing the respondents’ engagement in religious activities. The respondents were asked to chose between three options: Not at all, infrequent and frequent |
Descriptive statistics
| Demand for abortion (yes) | 308 | | 191(62%) |
| | | | |
| Housewife | 308 | | 25 (8.1) |
| Government | 308 | | 92 (29.9) |
| Private | 308 | | 108 (35.1) |
| Unemployed | 308 | | 83 (26.9) |
| 308 | 28 | | |
| | | | |
| 19–24 | 308 | | 71 (23.1) |
| 25–30 | 308 | | 139 (45.1) |
| 31–49 | 308 | | 98 (31.8) |
| | | | |
| Single | 308 | | 144 (46.8) |
| Married | 308 | | 120 (39.0) |
| Divorced | 308 | | 32 (10.4) |
| Widowed | 308 | | 6 (1.9) |
| Seperated | 308 | | 6 (1.9) |
| | | | |
| not at all | 308 | | 12 (3.9) |
| Infrequent | 308 | | 150 (48.7) |
| Frequent | 308 | | 146 (47.4) |
| | | | |
| Yoruba | 308 | | 184 (59.7) |
| Ibgo | 308 | | 72 (23.4) |
| Hausa | 308 | | 24 (7.8) |
| Others | 308 | | 28 (9.1) |
| 308 | ₦ 56,109.48 | | |
| | | | |
| Catholic | 308 | | 91 (29.5) |
| Islam | 308 | | 73 (23.7) |
| Protestant | 308 | | 103 (33.4) |
| Orthodox | 308 | | 20 (6.5) |
| Traditional | 308 | | 21 (6.8) |
| 191 | | 100 (52.3) | |
| | | | |
| None | 308 | | 15 (4.9) |
| Primary | 308 | | 9 (2.9) |
| Secondary | 308 | | 40 (13.0) |
| Post secondary | 308 | | 244 (79.2) |
| | | | |
| None | 308 | | 98 (31.8) |
| Primary | 308 | | 53 (17.2) |
| Secondary | 308 | | 61 (19.8) |
| Post secondary | 308 | | 95 (30.8) |
| | | | |
| None | 308 | | 67 (21.8) |
| Primary | 308 | | 42 (13.6) |
| Secondary | 308 | | 60 (19.5) |
| Post secondary | 308 | 138 (44.8) |
Probit model of socio-economic determinants of abortion demand
| | | | | |
| Education | −0.43762 | −0.16811 | | |
| | (−0.38399) | (−0.13831) | | |
| Marital status | −0.29859* | −0.11866* | 0.57205 | 0.01114 |
| | (−0.17013) | (−0.06715) | (−0.47767) | (−0.01207) |
| Log income | 0.29933*** | 0.11927*** | 0.19468 | 0.00418 |
| | (−0.08795) | (−0.03502) | (−0.24015) | (−0.00579) |
| Age squared | −0.00152 | −0.0006 | 0.00902** | 0.00019* |
| | (−0.00111) | (−0.00044) | (−0.00458) | (−0.0001) |
| Age | 0.12404* | 0.04943* | −0.51442** | −0.01103* |
| | (−0.07456) | (−0.02971) | (−0.23947) | (−0.00583) |
| Log total cost of abortion | | | 0.08951 | 0.00192 |
| | | | (−0.18315) | (−0.004) |
| | | | | |
| Infrequent | | | −3.58213*** | −0.25427* |
| | | | (−0.56451) | (−0.14855) |
| Frequent | | | −4.44578*** | −0.51820*** |
| | | | (−0.45017) | (−0.15189) |
| −0.38239* | −0.15060* | | | |
| | (−0.2314) | (−0.08929) | | |
| −0.01178 | −0.00469 | | | |
| | (−0.27146) | (−0.10813) | | |
| Constant | −4.60410*** | | 10.02630*** | |
| (−1.38469) | (−3.32549) |
Note: ***significant at 1%; **significant at 5%; *significant at 10%.
(1) is model without total cost of abortion demand.
(2) is model with log of total cost of abortion demand.
Robust standard errors are reported in parenthesis.
Probit model of socio-economic determinants of post abortion care
| | | | | |
| Education | −0.30437 | −0.11781 | | |
| | (−0.36524) | (−0.13596) | | |
| Marital status | −0.31512* | −0.12498* | −0.20449 | −0.00798 |
| | (−0.1682) | (−0.0663) | (−0.39562) | (−0.01687) |
| Log income | 0.29524*** | 0.11727*** | 0.45440* | 0.01673 |
| | (−0.08851) | (−0.03511) | (−0.27108) | (−0.0111) |
| Age square | −0.00121 | −0.00048 | 0.00474** | 0.00017* |
| | (−0.00109) | (−0.00043) | (−0.00219) | (−0.0001) |
| Age | 0.09984 | 0.03965 | −0.31265* | −0.01151 |
| | (−0.0738) | (−0.02932) | (−0.16698) | (−0.00727) |
| Log total cost of post abortion care | | | 0.20231 | 0.00745 |
| | | | (−0.22262) | (−0.00815) |
| Religion1 | | | −4.04989*** | −0.42199*** |
| | | | (−0.47173) | (−0.1375) |
| Religion2 | | | −4.48105*** | −0.61794*** |
| | | | (−0.37773) | (−0.12269) |
| Mother's education | −0.13729 | −0.05435 | | |
| | (−0.22705) | (−0.08949) | | |
| Father's education | −0.07334 | −0.02906 | | |
| | (−0.26551) | (−0.10493) | | |
| Constant | −4.32392*** | | 4.50871 | |
| (−1.38238) | (−3.38419) |
Note: ***significant at 1%; **significant at 5%; *significant at 10%.
(4) is model without total cost of post abortion care demand.
(5) is model with log of total cost of post abortion care demand.
Robust standard errors are reported in parenthesis.