Use of Randomized Response Technique to Measure the Induced Abortion Levels in Multan

Authors

  • Javaria Mahmood Department of Statistics, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan
  • Muhammad Ahmed Shehzad Department of Statistics, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan
  • Amna Khan Department of Statistics, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan
  • Inbasat Masood Department of Statistics, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31580/cgn5gm65

Keywords:

Asking sensitive questions indirectly, Lara’s Method, Randomized Response Technique, Survey Method, Unrelated question technique, Warner’s method

Abstract

Objectives:

 The objectives include finding out the status of induced abortion for Multan using RRT and specifying the aspects of women who practiced an abortion.

Material and methods:

The population of the study consists of women from Multan. Convenient sampling was used to collect data from women. A total of 217 women were interviewed. The survey was conducted using questionnaires and randomized response methods. An innocent question was used for an unrelated question method. We collected the data from visiting females from different maternity clinics, visiting mothers in girls' schools, and teachers in girls' schools. Our sample contained 217 women of the age group 15-55. The data analysis was done on SPSS.

Results:

 Our study shows the predicted induced abortion of women in their lives is 63 percent with a standard error of 0.064.

Discussion and Conclusion:

Our proportion for induced abortion was 63 percent. The ratio of induced abortion was high (31.46%) for the older women who were from the city (20.99%) and had high education levels (33.92%), in contrast with other categories. The proportions of induced abortion were also found for different groupings of knowledge among women. They can get easy access to such clinics that give facilities for induced abortion. One thing is the act of abortion, and the other one is to hide it. However, our technique is important to get information about these acts, which women are reluctant to discuss. Our methodology estimated truthful responses.

References

Warner SL. Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1965; 60(309):63-9.

Greenberg BG, Abul-Ela AL, Simmons WR, Horvitz DG. The unrelated question randomized response model: Theoretical framework. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1969; 64(326):520-39.

Mangat NS, Singh R. An alternative randomized response procedure. Biometrika. 1990; 77(2):439-42.

Mangat NS. An improved randomized response strategy. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological). 1994; 56(1):93-5.

Volicer BJ, Volicer L. Randomized response technique for estimating alcohol use and noncompliance in hypertensives. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1982; 43(7):739-50.

Sedgh G. Induced abortion: Global trends, local research methods. Guttmacher Institute; 2017.

Lara D, García SG, Ellertson C, Camlin C, Suárez J. The measure of induced abortion levels in Mexico using random response techniques. Sociological Methods & Research. 2006; 35(2):279-301

Pakistan’s alarming abortion rate. Daily Times. 2019.

Huber-Krum S, Hackett K, Kaur N, Nausheen S, Soofi S, Canning D, Shah I. An application of the list experiment to estimate abortion prevalence in Karachi, Pakistan. International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2020; 46(Supplement 1):13-24.

Singh S, Sedgh G. The relationship of abortion to trends in contraception and fertility in Brazil, Colombia and Mexico. International Family Planning Perspectives. 1997 Mar 1:4-14

Ahsan A, Jafarey SN. Unsafe abortion: global picture and situation in Pakistan. JPMA. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association. 2008; 58(12):660-1.

Scheers NJ, Dayton CM. Covariate randomized response models. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1988; 83(404):969-74.

Abernathy JR, Greenberg BG, Horvitz DG. Estimates of induced abortion in urban North Carolina. Demography. 1970; 7:19-29.

Abortion in North Carolina. NC State Center for Health Statistics; 2016.

Lensvelt-Mulders GJ, Hox JJ, Heijden PG. How to improve the efficiency of randomized response designs. Quality and Quantity. 2005; 39:253-65.

Lara D, Strickler J, Olavarrieta CD, Ellertson C. Measuring induced abortion in Mexico: a comparison of four methodologies. Sociological Methods & Research. 2004 May; 32(4):529-58.

Downloads

Published

2024-09-30

Issue

Section

Research Article