Skip to main content

Table 1 Women’s socio-demographic and reproductive profile stratified by group allocation and 3-month follow-up

From: Does mode of follow-up influence contraceptive use after medical abortion in a low-resource setting? Secondary outcome analysis of a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

 

ES population (n = 626)

3-month FU*

Total

n = 114

Clinic FU

n = 274

Home-assessment

n = 352

Total

n = 626

Median age, years (range)

27 (18–48)

27 (18–46)

27 (18–48)

27 (18–43)

Residency, n (%)

 - Urban

92 (34)

94 (27)

186 (30)

101 (89)

 - Rural

182 (66)

258 (73)

440 (70)

13 (11)

Belong to SC/ST Caste, n (%)

141 (51)

200 (57)

341 (55)

24 (21)

Level of Education, n (%)

 - No formal

124 (45)

202 (57)

326 (52)

10 (9)

 - Primary (1–3 years)

51 (19)

49 (14)

100 (16)

11 (10)

 - Secondary (4–10 years)

61 (22)

57 (16)

118 (19)

45 (39)

 - Higher (>10 years)

38 (14)

44 (13)

82 (13)

48 (42)

Ownership of phone

 - Woman herself

130 (47)

155 (44)

285 (46)

114 (100)

 - Husband

100 (36)

133 (38)

233 (37)

 

 - No/others

44 (16)

64 (18)

108 (17)

 

Primigravida, n (%)

10 (4)

18 (5)

28 (5)

7 (6)

One or more living girlsa

184 (70)

238 (71)

422 (71)

66 (62)

One or more living boysa

220 (84)

276 (83)

496 (83)

79 (74)

Median gestational age, weeks (range)

6.6 (5–9)

6.6 (5–9)

6.6 (5–9)

6.1 (5–9)

 - Gestational age in weeks, n (%)

   < 6 weeks

51 (19)

59 (17)

110 (18)

27 (24)

  6–7

150 (55)

197 (56)

347 (55)

73 (64)

   > 7 weeks

73 (27)

96 (27)

169 (27)

14 (12)

Prior elective abortion, n (%)

106 (39)

106 (30)

212 (34)

55 (48)

  - Medicalb

79 (75)

85 (80)

164 (77)

46 (84)

  - Surgicalb

30 (28)

26 (25)

56 (26)

18 (33)

Home administration of misoprostol, n (%)

134 (49)

156 (44)

290 (46)

67 (59)

Ever-used modern contraception, n (%)

111 (41)

107 (30)

218 (35)

78 (68)

  1. *The women in the 3-month FU are included in the ES population
  2. aPresented as percentage of women with children (n = 264 in clinic FU and n = 336 in home-assessment)
  3. bPresented as percentage of women with prior elective abortions (n = 106 in clinic FU and n = 106 in home-assessment)
  4. There are no significant differences between the study groups within the ES population
  5. There were no socio-demographic background differences between the women included in analysis and the women who were lost to follow-up (data of women lost to follow-up is not shown)