Skip to main content

Repeat abortion and associated factors among women seeking abortion services in northwestern China: a cross-sectional study

Abstract

Background

Repeat abortion is a significant public health problem in China. International knowledge about repeat abortion and its associated factors in Chinese women is scarce. This study aimed to analyze the prevalence of repeat abortion among women seeking abortion services with unintended pregnancies in northwestern China and to identify factors associated with the repeat abortion from both two perspectives of abortion seekers themselves and their sexual partners.

Methods

This cross-sectional survey was conducted from May 1st to May 31st, 2020, in 90 medical institutions in Xi’an, the largest city in northwestern China. All women seeking abortions within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy were invited to participate in this survey; however, only those abortion seekers with unintended pregnancies were extracted and included in this study. Pearson’s chi-squared tests, Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, and binary logistic regression analysis were performed.

Results

Of 3397 abortion seekers, 56.6% (1924) were undergoing repeat abortions. Participants who were older than 30 years (OR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.08–1.73 for 31–35 years; 1.82, 1.29–2.57 for ≥36 years), received a low-level education (1.86, 1.42–2.43 for ≤senior high school; 1.46, 1.17–1.83 for junior college), were jobless (2.46, 1.18–5.13), had one child (1.54, 1.10–2.17), had a general (1.60, 1.28–1.98) or no (2.51, 2.02–3.11) cognition of possible adverse health effects of having abortions, and had used contraception at the time of conception, i.e., condoms (1.33, 1.09–1.61), withdrawal (1.43, 1.12–1.84), and emergency measures (1.48, 1.09–1.99) were more likely to undergo a repeat abortion. Besides, participants whose sexual partners were older than 30 years (1.33, 1.06–1.68 for 31–35 years; 2.13, 1.56–2.91 for ≥36 years), attained a low-level education (1.66, 1.28–2.15 for ≤senior high school; 1.38, 1.10–1.74 for junior college), received a high-level monthly income (1.34, 1.08–1.65 for ≥6001 Yuan), and had a weak or very weak willingness to use contraception (6.84, 2.42–19.33) were more likely to have a repeat abortion.

Conclusions

The study findings highlight the problem of repeat abortion in China and suggest the need for government and civil society to increase efforts to reduce the risks of unintended pregnancy and repeat abortion in China. One approach may be to offer better access to reproductive health and contraception knowledge to women and their sexual partners and to promote their correct, consistent, and effective contraception practice.

Peer Review reports

Background

Unintended pregnancy and induced abortion are experienced by women around the world [1]. Between 2015 and 2019, approximately 121 million unintended pregnancies occurred every year, of which 61% ended in abortion, corresponding to 39 abortions per 1000 women aged 15–49 years and a total of 73 million abortions each year [1]. There is a global consensus that abortion is a public health problem that needs substantial attention [2]. Besides, many women experience more than one abortion throughout their reproductive years [3], and repeat abortion has also been noted as a significant and growing public health problem worldwide [2, 3]. The proportion of repeat abortion among all abortions had increased in Sweden (from 19% in 1975 to 38% in 2008), New Zealand (from 23% in 1991 to 38% in 2011), and France (from 18% in 1990 to 28% in 2002 and to 41% in 2011) [2, 3]. In the U.S., the percentage of repeat abortion among women undergoing an abortion ranged from 44.8 to 58.8% [4,5,6,7]. Other studies conducted in the U.K., Switzerland, Norway, Italy, Netherlands, Finland, Ethiopia, Georgia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Tunisia, Vietnam, Nepal, Hungary, Russia, and Canada reported that the prevalence of repeat abortion among women receiving an abortion or having had an abortion were 19.2–23.4% [8, 9], 30.1% [10], 36.7% [11], 60.6% [12], 36.0% [13], 14.1–37.9% [14, 15], 20.3–34.9% [16,17,18], 69.9% [19], 33.7% [20], 14.3% [21], 23.0% [22], 42.2% [23], 31.7% [24], 32.3% [25], 46.1% [26], 23.6% [27], and 31.8% [28], respectively.

There is evidence that a higher number of previous abortions is associated with an increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes in a subsequent pregnancy [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36]. As an indicator of quality of abortion care and reproductive health services for women, repeat abortion could be a pointer to poor linkage between abortion and contraceptive services, and it could also be a pointer to inadequate counseling services linked to abortion care. With these in mind, identifying associated factors is of importance that could help target interventions to those identified as vulnerable to repeat abortions. Currently, many studies have been conducted to identify factors associated with repeat abortion, which included individual sociodemographic characteristics (such as age, education, occupation, income, marriage, residence status, migrant status, and parity), unhealthy behaviors (such as tobacco and alcohol use), contraception patterns (such as contraceptive use at the time of conception or in the period prior to the survey), contraceptive knowledge, and factors related to sexual partners (such as the number of sexual partners and intimate partner violence) [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21, 23,24,25,26,27,28, 37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. Despite many international publications in this area, there is a lack of consensus regarding all of these factors associated with the repeat abortion.

In China, repeat abortion is a significant and growing public health problem [45, 46]. Induced abortion is legal and is a part of China’s family planning services [47]. With premarital sexual relationships becoming more acceptable in China, the risks of unintended pregnancy and subsequent abortion are increasing accordingly [46, 48]. Furthermore, the universal two-child policy implemented in 2016 may also increase such risks [49]. According to the statistics of the National Health Commission of China, approximately 6.1–9.9 million abortions were performed by the family planning services in China per year from 2000 to 2018 [50]. Meanwhile, a nationwide large-scale survey conducted in 30 Chinese provinces in 2013 reported that the prevalence of repeat abortion among 79,174 women seeking abortions was 64.8% [45], which showed that repeat abortion was highly prevalent in China. Despite several empirical studies on this topic in China, only a few have been published in international journals [49], and most are only available in Chinese and they draw no consistent conclusions on the prevalence and determinants of the repeat abortion among Chinese women. In addition, similar to international studies in other countries, very few studies in China have paid attention to factors related to women’s sexual partners. Given above evidence that repeat abortion is considerable challenge to women’s sexual and reproductive health in China, more research needs to be conducted to analyze the repeat abortion among women in China, especially to identify the factors associated with the repeat abortion.

Based on the above, using the data from a month-long cross-sectional survey among women seeking abortions in Xi’an, the largest city in northwestern China, this study aimed to analyze the prevalence of repeat abortion among these abortion seekers and to identify associated factors from the perspectives of both women and their sexual partners.

Methods

Study design and participants

A cross-sectional study was conducted in Xi’an, which is the capital of Shaanxi Province and located in northwestern China. All types of medical institutions, i.e., public or private, general or specialized, and primary, secondary, or tertiary, that can provide abortion services in Xi’an were invited to participate in the study. A total of 90 medical institutions were finally involved (see Table 1 in Additional file 1), of which 71.1% (64) were public hospitals, 88.9% (80) were general hospitals, and 32.2% (29) and 62.2% (56) were tertiary and secondary hospitals, respectively.

Besides, with reference to the study design in previous studies [45, 46, 48], we applied the convenience sampling strategy to select the study participants. Data were collected consecutively from all women seeking a surgical abortion or a medical abortion within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy in above 90 medical institutions during a study period of 1 month. With the assistance of nurses in each medical institution, an invitation to participate was sent to abortion seekers before they left the medical institutions after receiving the abortion services. However, after the data were cleaned, only those participants who had unintended pregnancies and reported valid data with respect to first versus repeat abortion were included in this study. We used abortion seekers’ answers to one question in the questionnaire to distinguish between women having unintended pregnancies and those with wanted pregnancies but who required an abortion due to medical reasons (see item 3.2 in Additional file 2).

We followed the STROBE (strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology) guidelines when reporting the results of this study [51].

Data collection and variable measurement

Data were collected between May 1st and May 31st, 2020, at each of the participating medical institutions. By referring to previous relevant studies in China [45, 48] and considering the objectives of this study, a structured questionnaire was developed by the research team and used for data collection (see Additional file 2). The questionnaire was anonymous and completed by the abortion seekers themselves. Before the formal survey, we conducted a small-scale pre-survey in two medical institutions to validate, revise, and finalize the questionnaire. All respondents provided verbal consent to participate in the survey.

The questionnaire consisted of three sections. The first section was participants’ sociodemographic characteristics measured by eight variables, which were: (1) age as a continuous variable initially and divided into three groups, i.e., ≤30 years, 31–35 years, and ≥ 36 years; (2) education with three groups, i.e., senior high school or below, junior college, and bachelor’s degree or above; (3) residence status with two groups, i.e., rural and urban; (4) migrant status with two groups, i.e., migrant and nonmigrant; (5) occupation with seven groups, i.e., student, housework, farmer, self-employed, enterprise employee, civil servant/teacher/researcher, and jobless; (6) income per month as a continuous variable initially and divided into three groups, i.e., ≤2500 Yuan, 2501–4000 Yuan, and ≥ 4001 Yuan; (7) marital status with two groups, i.e., unmarried and married; (8) parity with three groups, i.e., no children, 1 child, and ≥ 2 children.

The second section covered the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants’ sexual partners. They included six variables that were age, education, residence status, migrant status, occupation, and income per month, and these variables were set consistently with those of the participants in the first section except for income per month. Income per month of the participants’ sexual partners was a continuous variable initially and then it was divided into three groups, i.e., ≤4500 Yuan, 4501–6000 Yuan, and ≥ 6001 Yuan.

The third part was related to induced abortion and contraceptive use measured by five variables, which included the following: (1) repeat abortion with two groups, i.e., no and yes; (2) contraceptive use at the time of conception with six groups, i.e., nonuse, condom, rhythm, withdrawal, emergency, and other measures such as the combined oral contraceptive pill and implants; (3) contraceptive use during 6 months preceding the survey with six groups (available for multiple choices), i.e., nonuse, condom, rhythm, withdrawal, emergency, and other measures; (4) cognition of the possible adverse health effects of having an abortion with three groups, i.e., know well, general, and don’t know; (5) sexual partners’ willingness to use contraception with five groups: very weak, weak, general, strong, and very strong.

Data analysis

Data were entered, cleaned, and analyzed using Stata 14.1 (StataCorp, Texas, USA) for MAC. All categorical variables are displayed as counts and percentages. Continuous variables, i.e., participants’ and their sexual partners’ age and income per month, were tested for normality first using the one-sample K-S (Kolmogorov-Smirnov) tests. All p-values for these four variables were < 0.001, which indicated a non-normal distribution, and we described them using the “median” and “interquartile range (IQR)”.

Pearson’s chi-squared tests were applied to assess differences in the proportions of the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants and their sexual partners, participants’ cognition of the possible adverse health effects of having an abortion, and contraceptive use between participants undergoing a first abortion and those receiving a repeat abortion. Two-sample K-S tests were also performed to assess differences in the distribution of age and income per month of participants and their sexual partners between participants receiving a first abortion and those with a repeat abortion. P-values are displayed.

Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with repeat abortion of the participants. In the regression model, the repeat abortion of participants was set as the dependent variable, and other variables, including sociodemographic characteristics of the participants and their sexual partners, contraceptive use, participants’ cognition of possible adverse health effects of having an abortion, and participants’ sexual partners’ willingness to use contraception, were set as independent variables. However, only those that were already significant in prior univariate analyses, i.e., Pearson’s chi-squared tests and two-sample K-S tests, were included in the logistic regression model. The β (regression coefficient), S.E. (standard error), odds ratio (OR), 95% CI (confidence interval), and p-value were reported. A p-value < 0.05 was considered to be significant in this study.

Results

Study participants

Figure 1 shows the profile of the participants. A total of 3814 women seeking an induced abortion in 90 medical institutions participated in the survey, of whom 57.9 and 37.4% attended tertiary and secondary hospitals, respectively, 80.0% attended public hospitals, and 78.6% attended general hospitals (see Table 2 in Additional file 1).

Fig. 1
figure1

Study profile

However, among all abortion seekers in the survey, our study only focused on those abortion seekers with unintended pregnancies, not those with wanted pregnancies but who required an abortion due to medical reasons. As Fig. 1 shows, of all 3814 abortion seekers, 417 were excluded as they were planning to become pregnant but needed an abortion because of medical reasons, and thus 3397 participants were extracted from the original dataset and included in this study. Among these 3397 abortion seekers with unintended pregnancies, 1924 (56.6%) were undergoing a repeat abortion.

Sociodemographic characteristics

Table 1 shows the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants. Compared with participants undergoing their first abortions, those with a repeat abortion presented significantly higher proportions in the following groups: ≥31 years; receiving an education of senior high school or below; urban resident; nonmigrant; being engaged in occupations of housework, farmer, self-employed, and jobless; married; and having one or more children.

Table 1 Sociodemographic characteristics of participants

The sociodemographic characteristics of participants’ sexual partners were reported in Table 1 in Additional file 3. In comparison to the sexual partners of participants undergoing their first abortions, the sexual partners of those receiving a repeat abortion presented significantly higher percentages in the following groups: ≥31 years; receiving an education of senior high school or below; being engaged in the occupations of a farmer or self-employed; and receiving a monthly income of 6001 Yuan or more.

Contraception- and abortion-related characteristics

Table 2 shows participants’ contraceptive use and cognition of the possible adverse health effects of having an abortion and their sexual partners’ willingness to use contraception. Compared with the participants undergoing their first abortions, those with repeat abortions presented a significantly higher proportion in the following groups: having used contraception at the time of conception; having no knowledge of possible adverse health effects of having abortions; and having a weak or very weak willingness to use contraception of participants’ sexual partners.

Table 2 Contraceptive use, cognition of possible adverse health effects of having an abortion, and sexual partners’ willingness to use contraception

Factors associated with repeat abortion

Table 3 presents the results of multivariate binary logistic regression analysis for repeat abortion of participants. After adjusting for potential confounding factors, participants’ age, education, occupation, parity, cognition of the adverse health effects of having an abortion, and contraceptive use at the time of conception, and the participants’ sexual partners’ age, education, income per month, and willingness to use contraception were significantly associated with the repeat abortion.

Table 3 Factors associated with repeat abortion of participants

Discussion

From the global public health perspective, repeat abortion remains a severe challenge to women’s reproductive health, which needs increased attention and research. This study provides relevant evidence from northwestern China to the growing body of international literature on the repeat abortion of women and associated factors from both the perspectives of women and their sexual partners.

Our study found that approximately six in ten (56.6%) participants seeking an abortion with unintended pregnancies were undergoing a repeat abortion, which was similar to previous studies in China that reported that the prevalence of repeat abortion among women ranged from 43.0 to 65.2% [45, 49, 52]. However, these findings about the prevalence of repeat abortion among Chinese women were much higher than that of female abortion seekers elsewhere in the world [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 13,14,15,16,17,18, 20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. No direct evidence has been found about why Chinese women have a higher prevalence of repeat abortion; however, this difference might be relevant to the gap in sexual education and contraceptive practice in China compared with other, especially developed, countries [48]. To some extent, these results in China may also be related to the universal two-child policy implemented since Jan. 1st, 2016. In summary, our findings reveal the seriousness of this reproductive health problem for women in China, and more attention and action should be taken on how to reduce the risks of unintended pregnancy and repeat abortion among Chinese women.

In terms of contraceptive use at the time of conception, 58.3% had used contraception measures and 41.7% were nonuse of contraception, which was consistent with that in previous studies in China [45, 53]. Meanwhile, we found that a significantly higher percentage (61.2%) of women undergoing a repeat abortion had used contraception measures at the time of conception than those receiving their first abortions (54.4%). The results of multivariate analysis further showed that participants who had used contraception measures at the time of conception, such as condom, withdrawal, and emergency contraception, were 1.33–1.48 times more likely to undergo a repeat abortion than those who did not use contraceptives. These findings have also been reported in previous studies [11, 40, 41, 54]; however, McCall et al. [8] and Thapa et al. [25] did not identify a significant association between contraceptive use at the time of conception and repeat abortion among women in Scotland and Nepal, respectively. In addition, although we did not find a significant association of contraceptive use during the 6 months preceding the survey with repeat abortion of women, a slightly higher percentage of women undergoing a repeat abortion had used at least one contraception measure than those receiving their first abortions in this study. As noted by Kabiru et al. [40] and Cohen [54], these results all cast doubt on the often-made assumption that some women rely on abortions as a means to prevent unintended pregnancies and unplanned births, and women having experienced an abortion and even a repeat abortion are less motivated to use contraception. Instead, women having had a previous abortion might be more likely to use contraception but may need counseling for correct and effective contraceptive use and access to a wider range of effective contraception measures, such as the long-acting measures, to minimize the risks of contraceptive failure [40, 45, 46, 54].

Besides, with respect to the participants themselves, their age, education, occupation, parity, and cognition of the possible adverse health effects of having an abortion were significantly associated with the repeat abortion. First, in line with prior studies [4,5,6,7, 10,11,12,13, 19, 23,24,25,26, 28, 41, 44, 49, 52], we found that an increased age of women was strongly associated with a higher risk of having repeat abortions. This association is not surprising and reflects the longer exposure to sexual intercourse and thereby increased risks of unintended pregnancies for these older women. Second, we found that the lower the level of education women attained, the higher their risks of having a repeat abortion, which was consistent with prior studies [4,5,6, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 26, 27, 39, 40, 43, 53]. One possible explanation is that women with a higher-level education might have higher levels of health literacy, especially contraceptive knowledge, and better contraceptive practice, which allow them to better avoid unintended pregnancies and subsequent abortions. However, a few studies conducted in Ghana [20], Nepal [25], and the Netherlands [13] reported a contrary finding with the positive association between a higher-level education of women and the repeat abortion. Third, consistent with prior studies [11, 40, 43, 46, 48, 49], we found that jobless women were 2.46 times more likely to undergo a repeat abortion. This finding might be related to their poor contraceptive knowledge and limited access to contraceptive measures [48]. In addition, Makenzius et al. [43] pointed out that women suffering from poverty caused by unemployment might have reduced motivation to practice safe sexual intercourse.

Parity was the fourth factor associated with repeat abortion. In line with a great deal of evidence in prior studies [4, 5, 8, 9, 11,12,13,14,15, 19, 21, 24,25,26, 39, 41, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49], our study showed that participants having a child were 1.54 times more likely to under a repeat abortion than nulliparous participants. Jones et al. reported that women having children were demonstrably fertile and therefore at continued risk of pregnancy after the first abortion [4]. In the opinion of Kirkman et al. [55], parous women, especially those with higher parity, sought abortions because they did not want to look after another child. In our study, the association between parity and repeat abortion might also be related to the change in the family planning policy in China. To some extent, the implementation of the universal two-child policy in China since 2016 might weaken the contraceptive awareness of women, especially those having already had one child, as they could legally have a second child, even if it might be an unwanted birth. Fifth, we found that participants’ cognition of potential adverse health effects of having an abortion was significantly associated with repeat abortion. Not surprisingly, we found that the lower the cognitive level among women, the higher the risk of having a repeat abortion. This finding may reflect the weak sex education system in China, and women still have limited access to counseling for relevant reproductive health knowledge; however, no related evidence has been reported in prior studies.

In addition to the above factors, our study identified four more factors that were significantly associated with the repeat abortion from the perspective of abortion seekers’ sexual partners, including their age, education, income, and attitudes toward contraceptive use. Few similar studies and findings have been reported. First, we found that the participants whose sexual partners were older than 30 years were 1.33–2.13 times more likely to undergo a repeat abortion. This is similar to the finding on women’s age as a factor associated with the repeat abortion, and it reflects the longer exposure to sexual intercourse of older sexual partners and thereby higher risks of unintended pregnancies for women. Second, our study reported that abortion seekers whose sexual partners attained a lower-level education were 1.38–1.66 times more likely to undergo a repeat abortion. This is also similar to that of the participants themselves, and their sexual partners with a lower-level education might have less contraceptive knowledge and poorer contraceptive practice. Zhang et al. found that women with a repeat abortion had a higher percentage of sexual partners with a low- and middle-level education compared to those who experienced only one abortion; however, they did not identify a significant association between them [52].

Besides, participants whose sexual partners had the highest-level income per month were 1.34 times more likely to undergo a repeat abortion than those with the lowest-level income per month. One possible explanation is that, in the current structure and relationship of Chinese couples and families, it is still men who carry the most of the economic responsibility; and for these couples or families where men receive a high-level income, they may have the financial ability to take care of a child whose birth is unplanned [40], thereby they are at a higher risk of poor contraception practices. Fourth, our study identified that participants’ sexual partners’ attitudes toward contraception was strongly associated with participants’ repeat abortions. Compared with participants whose sexual partners presented a very strong willingness to use contraception, those with a sexual partner who had a weak or very weak willingness were 6.84 times more likely to undergo a repeat abortion. As we found that the male condom was the most common method participants used at the time of conception or during the 6 months preceding the survey, the negative attitudes toward contraceptive use by sexual partners would not surprisingly increase risk of unintended pregnancy for women. Although no similar evidence about the significant association has ever been reported, Zhang et al. also found that compared with women undergoing a first abortion, those with a repeat abortion had a higher percentage of sexual partners who had negative attitudes toward contraception [52]. These findings highlight the significant role of women’s sexual partners in reducing women’s risks of unintended pregnancy and subsequent abortion, even the repeat abortion, by improving their awareness and practice of contraception.

There are several limitations to our study. First, as the study was conducted in Xi’an, a northwestern city in China, the results could not be generalized very well to all women in other regions in China. Second, although our study focused on both the perspectives of participants and their sexual partners, we could not identify and report all factors associated with the repeat abortion, as there were many other aspects that we did not collect and review. Third, as the survey was self-reported by women seeking abortions themselves, though anonymous, this might bring a bias of social desirability. For example, women who were undergoing a repeat abortion might especially feel like that they should report having used contraception. Fourth, as this was based on a cross-sectional survey, we could not conclude any causal relationships of repeat abortion of women with the factors identified in our study. Fifth, the use of convenience sampling, rather than probability sampling, is a weakness of the study.

Conclusions

This study found that repeat abortion among abortion seekers is highly prevalent in Xi’an, China. Approximately six in ten women seeking an abortion were undergoing a repeat abortion, which suggests the still critical issue of reducing the risks of unintended pregnancy and repeat abortion among women and improving their reproductive health in China. In addition, this study identified ten factors associated with the repeat abortion from both the perspectives of the participants themselves and their sexual partners. Specifically, women who were more likely to undergo a repeat abortion were those who were older, received a low-level education, were jobless, had a child, had a low-level cognition of possible adverse health effects from abortions, and had used contraception at the time of conception, and women whose sexual partners were older, attained a low-level education, received a high-level income per month, and had a weak willingness to use contraception were more likely to undergo a repeat abortion. The occurrence of repeat abortion could be reduced by offering more access to reproductive health and contraception knowledge to women and their sexual partners and by promoting their correct, consistent, and effective contraception practice.

Availability of data and materials

Data are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

95% CI:

95% confidence interval

IQR:

Interquartile range

K-S test:

Kolmogorov-Smirnov test

OR:

Odds ratio

S.E.:

Standard error

STROBE:

Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology

U.K.:

United Kingdom

U.S.:

United States

References

  1. 1.

    Bearak J, Popinchalk A, Ganatra B, Moller A-B, Tunçalp Ö, Beavin C, et al. Unintended pregnancy and abortion by income, region, and the legal status of abortion: estimates from a comprehensive model for 1990–2019. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8(9):e1152–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30315-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Guillaume A, Rossier C. Abortion around the world: an overview of legislation, measures, trends, and consequences. Population. 2018;73:217–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Rowlands S. Abortion care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338623.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Jones R, Jerman J, Ingerick M. Which Abortion Patients Have Had a Prior Abortion? Findings from the 2014 U.S. Abortion Patient Survey. J Womens Health. 2018;27:58–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Toprani A. Repeat abortions in new York City, 2010. J Urban Health. 2015;92(3):593–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-015-9946-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Bleil ME, Adler NE, Pasch LA, Sternfeld B, Reijo-Pera RA, Cedars MI. Adverse childhood experiences and repeat induced abortion. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:122.e1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Prager SW, Steinauer JE, Foster DG, Darney PD, Drey EA. Risk factors for repeat elective abortion. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:575.e1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    McCall SJ, Flett G, Okpo E, Bhattacharya S. Who has a repeat abortion? Identifying women at risk of repeated terminations of pregnancy: analysis of routinely collected health care data. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2016;42(2):133–42. https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2014-101059.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Stone N, Ingham R. Who presents more than once? Repeat abortion among women in Britain. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2011;37(4):209–15. https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2011-0063.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Leeners B, Bieli S, Huang D, Tschudin S. Why prevention of repeat abortion is so challenging: psychosocial characteristics of women at risk. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2017;22(1):38–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2016.1258053.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Justad-Berg RT, Eskild A, Strøm-Roum EM. Characteristics of women with repeat termination of pregnancy: a study of all requests for pregnancy termination in Norway during 2007-2011. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94(11):1175–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12714.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Citernesi A, Dubini V, Uglietti A, Ricci E, Cipriani S, Parazzini F, et al. Intimate partner violence and repeat induced abortion in Italy: a cross sectional study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2015;20(5):344–9. https://doi.org/10.3109/13625187.2014.992516.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Picavet C, Goenee M, Wijsen C. Characteristics of women who have repeat abortions in the Netherlands. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2013;18(5):327–34. https://doi.org/10.3109/13625187.2013.820824.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Heikinheimo O, Gissler M, Suhonen S. Age, parity, history of abortion and contraceptive choices affect the risk of repeat abortion. Contraception. 2008;78(2):149–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2008.03.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Heikinheimo O, Gissler M, Suhonen S. Can the outcome of the next pregnancy be predicted at the time of induced abortion? Hum Reprod. 2008;24(4):820–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den465.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Waktola MI, Mekonen DG, Nigussie TS, Cherkose EA, Abate AT. Repeat induced abortion and associated factors among women seeking abortion care services at Debre Markos town health institutions, Amhara regional state, Ethiopia, 2017. BMC Res Notes. 2020;13(1):44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-020-4904-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Behulu GK, Fenta EA, Aynalem GL. Repeat induced abortion and associated factors among reproductive age women who seek abortion services in Debre Berhan town health institutions, Central Ethiopia, 2019. BMC Res Notes. 2019;12(1):499. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4542-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Alemayehu B, Addissie A, Ayele W, Tiroro S, Woldeyohannes D. Magnitude and associated factors of repeat induced abortion among reproductive age group women who seeks abortion Care Services at Marie Stopes International Ethiopia Clinics in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Reprod Health. 2019;16:76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Pestvenidze E, Berdzuli N, Lomia N, Gagua T, Umikashvili L, Stray-Pedersen B. Repeat induced abortions in Georgia, characteristics of women with multiple pregnancy terminations: secondary analysis of the reproductive health survey 2010. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;205:85–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.08.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Kwabiah AA. Factors associated with multiple induced abortions in Ghana. Accra: University of Ghana; 2016. http://197.255.68.205/bitstream/handle/123456789/28101/Factors%20Associated%20with%20Multiple%20Induced%20Abortions%20in%20Ghana.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

  21. 21.

    Maina BW, Mutua MM, Sidze EM. Factors associated with repeat induced abortion in Kenya. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):1048. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2400-3.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Lamina MA. Prevalence of abortion and contraceptive practice among women seeking repeat induced abortion in Western Nigeria. J Pregnancy. 2015;2015:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/486203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    El Mhamdi S, Ben Salah A, Bouanene I, Hlaiem I, Hadhri S, Maatouk W, et al. Obstetric and psychological characteristics of women seeking multiple abortions in the region of Monastir (Tunisia): results of a cross-sectional design. BMC Womens Health. 2015;15(1):40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-015-0198-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Ngo TD, Keogh S, Nguyen TH, Le HT, Pham KHT, Nguyen YBT. Risk factors for repeat abortion and implications for addressing unintended pregnancy in Vietnam. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2014;125(3):241–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.11.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Thapa S, Neupane S. Risk factors for repeat abortion in Nepal. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2013;120(1):32–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2012.07.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Kozinszky Z, Devosa I, Sikovanyecz J, Szabó D, Pál Z, Barabás K, et al. Predictive model of repeat induced abortion in Hungary. Open Medicine. 2011;6(6):701–9. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11536-011-0080-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Keenan K, Grundy E, Kenward MG, Leon DA. Women’s risk of repeat abortions is strongly associated with alcohol consumption: a longitudinal analysis of a Russian National Panel Study, 1994–2009. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e90356. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090356.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Fisher WA. Characteristics of women undergoing repeat induced abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 2005;172(5):637–41. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1040341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Kc S, Gissler M, Virtanen SM, Klemetti R. Risks of adverse perinatal outcomes after repeat terminations of pregnancy by their methods: a Nationwide register-based cohort study in Finland 1996-2013. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2017;31(6):485–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppe.12389.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Klemetti R, Gissler M, Niinimäki M, Hemminki E. Birth outcomes after induced abortion: a nationwide register-based study of first births in Finland. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(11):3315–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des294.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Lowit A, Bhattacharya S, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric performance following an induced abortion. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;24(5):667–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2010.02.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Shah P, Zao J. Induced termination of pregnancy and low birthweight and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analyses. BJOG. 2009;116:1425–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02278.x.

  33. 33.

    Moreau C, Kaminski M, Ancel PY, Bouyer J, Escande B, Thiriez G, et al. Previous induced abortions and the risk of very preterm delivery: results of the EPIPAGE study. BJOG. 2005;112(4):430–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00478.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Ancel P, Lelong N, Papiernik E, Saurel-Cubizolles M, Kaminski M. History of induced abortion as a risk factor for preterm birth in European countries: results of the EUROPOP survey. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(3):734–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Thorp JM, Hartmann KE, Shadigian E. Long-term physical and psychological health consequences of induced abortion: review of the evidence. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2003;58(1):67–79. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006254-200301000-00023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Henriet L, Kaminski M. Impact of induced abortions on subsequent pregnancy outcome: the 1995 French national perinatal survey. BJOG. 2001;108(10):1036–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2001.00243.x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Rodrigues-Martins D, Lebre A, Santos J, Braga J. Association between contraceptive method chosen after induced abortion and incidence of repeat abortion in northern Portugal. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2020;25(4):259–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2020.1764527.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Alemayehu M, Yebyo H, Medhanyie AA, Bayray A, Fantahun M, Goba GK. Determinants of repeated abortion among women of reproductive age attending health facilities in northern Ethiopia: a case–control study. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):188. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4106-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Väisänen H. Educational inequalities in repeat abortion: a longitudinal register study in Finland 1975-2010. J Biosoc Sci. 2016;48(6):820–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002193201600016X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Kabiru CW, Ushie BA, Mutua MM, Izugbara CO. Previous induced abortion among young women seeking abortion-related care in Kenya: a cross-sectional analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0894-z.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    McCall SJ, Ibrahim UN, Imamura M, Okpo E, Flett G, Bhattacharya S. PP25 exploring the determinant factors for repeat abortion: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014;68(Suppl 1):A57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Hall M, Chappell LC, Parnell BL, Seed PT, Bewley S. Associations between intimate partner violence and termination of pregnancy: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2014;11(1):e1001581. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001581.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Makenzius M, Tydén T, Darj E, Larsson M. Repeat induced abortion – a matter of individual behaviour or societal factors? A cross-sectional study among Swedish women. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2011;16(5):369–77. https://doi.org/10.3109/13625187.2011.595520.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    St. John H, Critchley H, Glasier A. Can we identify women at risk of more than one termination of pregnancy? Contraception. 2005;71:31–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Wu S, Temmerman M, Wang K, Wang S, Li J, Zhang W-H. Induced abortion in 30 Chinese provinces in 2013: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet. 2015;386:S18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00596-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Liu J, Wu S, Xu J, Temmerman M, Zhang W-H. Repeat abortion in Chinese adolescents: a cross-sectional study in 30 provinces. Lancet. 2017;390:S17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33155-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Liu J, Englert Y, Zhang W-H. Is induced abortion a part of family planning in China? In: Lakhno I, editor. Induced Abortion and Spontaneous Early Pregnancy Loss - Focus on Management. London: IntechOpen; 2020. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86342.

  48. 48.

    Liu J, Wu S, Xu J, Temmerman M, Zhang W-H. The INPAC Group. Is Repeat Abortion a Public Health Problem among Chinese Adolescents? A Cross-Sectional Survey in 30 Provinces. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Liu J, Mao Y, Wen C, Ogbe E, Zhang WH. Repeat abortion and determinants of Chinese women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2018;66:S366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respe.2018.05.351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. China health statistical yearbook 2019. Beijing: Peking Union Medical College Press; 2019.

  51. 51.

    Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1500–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Zhang B, Nian Y, Palmer M, Chen Q, Wellings K, Oniffrey TM, et al. An ecological perspective on risk factors for repeat induced abortion in China. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2018;18:43–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2018.10.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Cheng Y, Gno X, Li Y, Li S, Qu A, Kang B. Repeat induced abortions and contraceptive practices among unmarried young women seeking an abortion in China. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2004;87(2):199–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2004.06.010.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Cohen SA. Repeat abortion, repeat unintended pregnancy, repeated and misguided government policies. Guttmacher Policy Rev. 2007;10:8–12.

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Kirkman M, Rowe H, Hardiman A, Mallett S, Rosenthal D. Reasons women give for abortion: a review of the literature. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2009;12(6):365–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-009-0084-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the participants for their active cooperation in our survey. We very appreciate all abortion service providers and managers of medical institutions for their strong assistance and support. Besides, we are grateful for the Health Commission of Xi’an.

Funding

No.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

CL, JG, and JL conceived and designed the study. JL designed the questionnaire. CL and JL collected and analyzed the data, and drafted and finalized the paper. JG commented the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jinlin Liu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the School of Medicine of Xi’an Jiaotong University, and the approval number was 20201302. All respondents provided verbal consent to participate in the survey, which was approved by the Ethics Committee.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

List and characteristics of medical institutions in the survey.

Additional file 2.

Questionnaire for women seeking abortion services in Xi’an, China.

Additional file 3.

Sociodemographic characteristics of participants’ sexual partners.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, C., Gao, J. & Liu, J. Repeat abortion and associated factors among women seeking abortion services in northwestern China: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 21, 1626 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11653-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Repeat abortion
  • Unintended pregnancy
  • Women
  • Sexual partner
  • China