Skip to main content
Download PDF

Examining the rural-urban divide in predisposing, enabling, and need factors of unsafe abortion in India using Andersen’s behavioral model

BMC Public Health volume 22, Article number: 1497 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The prevalence of unsafe abortions significantly varies with geography; therefore, more research is needed to understand the rural-urban differences in unsafe abortion practices in India. The present study aims to explore the rural-urban differences in predisposing, enabling, and need factors of unsafe abortion in India.

Methods

The present study used the fourth round of the National Family Health Survey (2015–16) and included the women aged 15–49 who terminated pregnancies by induced abortion during the 5 years prior to the survey (N = 9113) as the study sample. Descriptive statistics, bivariate chi-square significance test and multivariate logistic regression model were used to accomplish the study objectives.

Results

The findings revealed that almost one-third of pregnancies were terminated through unsafe measures with sharp rural-urban contrast. The likelihood of unsafe abortions increases with decreasing women’s age and spousal level of education. Younger women in urban settings were more vulnerable to unsafe abortion practices. In rural settings, women with an uneducated spouse are more likely to have unsafe abortions (OR: 1.92). Poor households were more likely to undergo unsafe abortions, which were more common in rural settings (OR: 1.26). The unmet need for family planning was revealed to be a significant need factor for unsafe abortion, particularly in rural settings.

Conclusion

Although abortion is legal, India’s high estimated frequency of unsafe abortions reveals a serious public health issue. Due to socio-economic vulnerability, unmet family planning needs, and a lack of awareness, significant numbers of women still practice unsafe abortions in India.

Peer Review reports

Background

Unsafe abortion is a serious public health concern, adversely linked to reproductive health issues [1]. In the short term, unsafe abortion accelerates the risk of maternal mortality, haemorrhage, and post-abortion sepsis [2]. Consequently, the long-term risk includes the risk of ectopic pregnancy, premature delivery, miscarriages in subsequent pregnancies, sterility, and other psycho-physical disabilities [1, 3, 4]. In cognizance of prevailing repercussions, the World Health Assembly (2004) first endorsed unsafe abortion as a global reproductive health agenda and recommended the provision of safe abortion services [5]. The Sustainable Development Goals also included several targets to ensure sexual and reproductive health (SRH) rights and promote universal access to SRH services [6]. However, many countries in the lower-and-middle income countries have been facing unsafe abortion and associated health challenges due to the complexity of abortion laws, poor abortion healthcare services, and socio-economic poverty [7,8,9,10].

Worldwide, approximately 25 million abortions occur annually in unsafe settings, and Asian countries account for 50% of total unsafe abortions [11]. Moreover, India accounts for 6.5 million abortions, with two-thirds of abortions ending in unsafe settings [12, 13]. Furthermore, the National Family and Health Survey (2017) suggested that the prevalence of unsafe abortion is higher in rural India than in urban areas. In India, abortion is legal under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) amendment bill (2020) for a wide range of medical and social reasons [14]. It should be performed under the guidance of trained providers [15]. However, a sizable portion of induced abortions continue to be carried out using unsafe methods [14] and are widespread among women with unwanted, close-spacing, and illegitimate pregnancies. Furthermore, a significant number of women perform sex-selective abortions through unskilled care providers, while sex-selective abortion is illegal in India by the MTP act (1971) [16, 17].

Socio-demographic and geographical divides in the practice of unsafe abortion are notable in India [18, 19]. Furthermore, many prior small-area-level studies suggest a significant difference in socio-demographic patterns of unsafe abortions between rural and urban areas [10, 20,21,22]. The proportion of teenage maternity, unwanted pregnancy, close-spacing pregnancy, and unmet need for family planning is more prevalent in rural areas, which upsurges the demand for induced abortions [22,23,24]. However, rural India’s high illiteracy, poverty, and poor healthcare infrastructure constrain access to safe abortion facilities [23]. The Government of India (GoI) implemented the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) to improve grass-root level healthcare facilities. Despite the progress in healthcare coverage, there are still disparities based on place of residence [25]. In tune with circumstances, the study hypothesized that rural and urban India might have different socio-demographic patterns and determinants of unsafe abortion.

However, available literature has focused on the prevalence, pattern, and predictors of unsafe abortions [7, 18,19,20]. Nevertheless, the rural-urban gap in determinants of unsafe abortion practices, particularly in the Indian context using national representative data, remains to be explored. Therefore, sorting out the marginalized sub-groups between rural and urban settings is necessary to ease the inequalities more rationally. In line with this purpose, the present study aims to fill the gap through two central questions: Firstly, what are the socio-economic determinants of self-reported unsafe abortion in India? Secondly, how does the socio-economic determinant vary over geographical dynamics regarding rural and urban settings?

Methods

Data source and participants

The data was drawn from the fourth round of the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4), conducted in 2015–16. The NFHS, an Indian version of the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS), provides consistent and reliable data on fertility, mortality, family planning, child nutritional status, reproductive and child healthcare utilization, and other related indicators [26]. The cross-sectional survey adopts a multistage stratified random sampling design in rural and urban areas. The NFHS-4 survey includes a total sample of 699,686 women; only the women aged 15–49 who terminated their pregnancies by induced abortion in the 5 years prior to the survey (N = 9113) were included in the present study.

Outcome variable

The surveys collected information on abortion services using the following questions. In the pregnancy history section of the questionnaire, women were asked: Have you ever had a pregnancy that miscarried, was aborted, or ended in a stillbirth? The response was yes or no. Following that, a question was asked to the women who responded yes: When did the last such pregnancy end? The answers were: (a) the last pregnancy ended before January 2011, and (b) the last pregnancy ended in January 2011 or later. Lastly, a subsequent question was asked to the women who experienced only abortions, excluding miscarriage and stillbirth, of their last pregnancy in January 2011 or later: who performed the abortions? The responses were doctor, nurse, auxiliary nurse midwife (ANM)/lady health visitor (LHV), Dai, family member/relative/friend, self, and others. The responses were categorized into two categories in the present study: safe abortion (coded as 0)—which included induced abortions performed by doctors and nurses/ANM/LHV; and unsafe abortion (coded as ‘1’)—which included induced abortions performed by anybody other than skilled care providers [27].

Explanatory variables

Andersen’s behavioral model of healthcare utilization is a multilevel model that includes individual and contextual determinants of healthcare utilization [28, 29] and has been used as a conceptual framework in the present study. Using Andersen’s behavioral model of healthcare service utilization, the predictors were divided into three groups in the current study: predisposing, enabling, and need factors (Fig. 1). Predisposing factors included the place of residence (urban, rural), geographical region (north, central, east, northeast, south, and west), women’s age (15–19, 20–24, 25–29, 30–34, 35–39, 40+ years), women’s education level (no education, primary, secondary, or higher), husband’s education level (no education, primary, secondary, or higher), caste/class (general, other backward classes [OBCs], scheduled tribes and scheduled castes [STs/SCs]), religion (Muslim, non-Muslim), and sex composition of living children (no child, daughter only, son only, both) [7, 19]. Enabling factors included maternal wealth status (rich, middle, poor), mass media exposure (yes, no), working status (yes, no), and autonomy (yes, no) [14, 24, 29]. Need factors included the unmet need for family planning (yes, no) and gestational period (8 weeks, 9–12 weeks, ≥13 weeks) [22, 29].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Conceptual framework of factors of unsafe abortion using Anderson’s behavioural model [29, 30]

Full size image

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were presented to understand the distribution of research participants. Further, the bivariate analysis with Pearson’s chi-square significant test was performed to demonstrate the patterns of unsafe abortions by background characteristics. Multivariate logistic regression was applied using “safe abortion practices” as the reference category to access the determinants of unsafe abortions. In multivariate models, three consecutive models were employed based on Andersen’s healthcare utilization model. First, we considered only predisposing factors (place of residence, geographical region, women’s age, and level of education, husband’s education level, caste/class, religion, sex composition of living children) in model 1; followed by enabling factors (wealth status, mass media exposure, working status, and autonomy) added in model 2; and finally, need factors (unmet need of family planning, and gestational period) have been included in model 3 to access the adjusted effects of selected explanatory variables. The p ≤ 0.05 threshold for determining variables in the multivariate logistic regression model was considered. Before doing the multivariate analysis, we used the variance inflation factor (VIF) to check for multicollinearity across explanatory variables and found no sign of an issue. The odds ratio (OR), with a 95% confidence interval, is used to present the regression results. STATA version 14.0 was used for all statistical analyses (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA).

Results

Background characteristics of the sample

Table 1 presents the background characteristics of the study sample. The results show that more than half of the sample belonged to the south, central, and eastern regions, irrespective of place of residence. Most of the samples were from the middle reproductive age group (25–29 years) in rural and urban settings. The urban sample population was wealthier and more educated than their rural counterparts. In particular, the percentage of poor and illiterate women was almost two and five times higher in rural compared to urban counterparts. The percentage of uneducated spouses was also twofold higher in rural areas compared to urban counterparts. The unmet need for family planning was slightly higher in rural areas than urban ones.

Table 1 Descriptive characteristics of the study population by place of residence, NFHS-4 India, 2015–16
Full size table

The rural-urban difference in the prevalence of unsafe abortion

In India, the prevalence of unsafe abortion was found to be 7.2% higher in rural areas (30.3%) compared to its urban counterpart (23.1%) (Table 2). Geographical patterns showed that the rural-urban gap in the prevalence of unsafe abortion was highest in the central region (8.2%) and lowest in the west region (− 0.2%). Except for the early reproductive age group (15–19 years), the prevalence of unsafe abortion was higher in rural areas compared to urban areas among all peers. However, the prevalence of unsafe abortion was 20% higher among early reproductive women in urban settings (51.8%) than in their rural counterparts (31.8%). Regarding social groups, the prevalence of unsafe abortion was almost 10% higher among socio-economically backward women (SCs/STs/OBCs) who reside in rural areas than their urban counterparts. The rural-urban gap in the prevalence of unsafe abortion was also significant among women who had an only female child and more prevalent in rural settings. Women with an unmet need for family planning in rural areas reported more unsafe abortions than their urban counterparts.

Table 2 Rural-urban difference in unsafe abortion by selected background characteristics, NFHS-4 India, 2015–16
Full size table

Rural-urban differences in predisposing, enabling, and need factors of unsafe abortion

The likelihood of unsafe abortion was found to be 17% more likely in rural areas compared to urban counterparts in India (Table 3, model 1). Women’s age, geographical region, and sex composition of living children were significant predisposing factors to unsafe abortions in India, irrespective of place of residence. Household wealth status was found as a significant enabling factor for unsafe abortion in India, particularly in rural settings. The unmet need for family planning was found as a need factor for unsafe abortion in India, especially among rural dwellers (Tables 3, 4 and 5, model 3).

Table 3 Odds ratios of unsafe abortion from multivariate binary logistic regression models, NFHS-4 India, 2015–16
Full size table
Table 4 Odds ratios of unsafe abortion from multivariate binary logistic regression models, NFHS-4 rural India, 2015–16
Full size table
Table 5 Odds ratios of unsafe abortion from multivariate binary logistic regression models, NFHS-4 urban India, 2015–16
Full size table

In particular, the likelihood of unsafe abortions was found to be more prevalent in the rural central and eastern regions than in the reference category, i.e., the southern part. The likelihood of unsafe abortions was found to be almost three times and five times more likely among the early reproductive age group (15–19 years) compared to the advanced reproductive age group (40+ years) in rural and urban areas, respectively (Tables 4 and 5, model 3). The likelihood of unsafe abortion was found to be significantly higher among women with only female children compared to only male or no children in India, irrespective of place of residence (Tables 3, 4 and 5, model 3). The women who belong to the poor wealth quintile in rural India were 26% more likely to access unsafe abortion services than their wealthy counterparts. Furthermore, the women with uneducated spouses were 92% more likely to access unsafe abortion services compared to higher educated spouses in rural settings (Table 4, model 3).

Discussion

The prevalence and determinants of unsafe abortion were evaluated in the current study in both rural and urban settings in India. It has been demonstrated that women’s age, geographical region, sex composition of the living children, and husband’s level of education are important predisposing and need factors of unsafe abortion in India, both in rural and urban settings. Our findings support the commonsense predisposing factors to unsafe abortion, as concluded by Andersen in the Indian context [7]. However, household wealth status and unmet need for family planning were found to be enabling and need factors of unsafe abortion, particularly in rural India.

In line with prior studies in India [18, 31] and elsewhere [30], the present study found that unsafe abortion was more prevalent in rural than urban areas. A study by Banerjee & Andersen (2012) revealed that women residing in rural areas are often compelled to abort their pregnancies under untrained providers because of inadequate access to safe abortion procedures and a lack of knowledge about the location of safe abortion [7]. In support of these barriers, several prior studies [28, 32] have exhibited the lack of availability of primary health centres (PHCs) along with untrained health care providers in community health centres (CHCs) as the major hindrances to the utilization of safe abortion services in a rural setting. In addition, women in rural settings usually have a lower degree of autonomy and a high unmet need for family planning, which eventually leads them to access unsafe abortion practices [7, 24].

In line with Andersen’s behavioural model, our study also found geographical region as an important predisposing factor of healthcare utilization in the Indian context [7, 29]. Regarding geographical region, the prevalence of unsafe abortion was found to be significantly high in the rural central and eastern regions and may be aggravated due to the existence of socio-economic deprivation and the availability of limited healthcare services [19]. Both high socio-economic poverty and poor maternal healthcare services in rural central and eastern regions negatively affect safe health care service utilization, as suggested by many prior studies [33]. Andersen (1995) also mentioned that regional inequality in terms of the economy, healthcare facilities, and socio-cultural aspects shapes levels of healthcare utilization [29].

We found that early reproductive women had a higher likelihood of unsafe abortion than advanced reproductive women in both rural and urban India, which is consistent with research from Pakistan [34] and Nepal [30] but dissimilar with findings from Ghana [35]. Many previous studies suggested that a lack of knowledge about safe abortion service providers, the legal process of abortion, and the high unmet need for contraception for spacing increased the burden of unsafe abortion among early reproductive women in India and elsewhere [19,20,21, 34,35,36]. Furthermore, the likelihood of unsafe abortion was found to be significantly higher among early reproductive women (15–19 years), particularly in urban settings in India. Therefore, further study is needed to explore why the practice of unsafe abortion is so common among the early reproductive age group in metropolitan India.

There was no significant association between women’s level of education or autonomy and the risk of unsafe abortion practice in India. The result was similar to the previous study in India [19] but dissimilar to the findings from Nepal [30]. Furthermore, the insignificant association between women’s education and autonomy and choice of abortion care indicates that Indian women have limited power to make healthcare decisions. At the same time, the husband’s education was protective in performing induced abortions through unsafe methods in rural settings. The result suggested that all major health care decisions in a household are generally taken by the male member, and improving the level of education increases the utilization of safe health services in rural India [37].

Another interesting finding of our study is that the likelihood of unsafe abortions was found to be higher among women who had only daughters than among those who had only sons. This finding is consistent with several previous studies [18, 38]. The possible explanation for the prevailing variation lies in the practice of sex-selective abortions among women with only daughters, which often remained clandestine and were performed in unsafe settings [39, 40]. However, further study is needed to explore the patterns of unsafe abortion by region with high fertility and low sex ratio to understand better the association between sex-selective abortion or unwanted birth abortions and the risk of unsafe abortion practice.

Among the need factors, the unmet need for family planning was found as a significant determinant of unsafe abortion in India; the result is consistent with prior studies in Ghana [41]. Furthermore, women with an unmet need for family planning are more likely to perform unsafe abortions in rural settings. The unmet need for family planning is positively associated with unintended pregnancy, as suggested by many previous studies [18, 21, 41]. Most unintended pregnancies have been terminated through unsafe methods to minimize the cost of abortion and sidestep the legal procedure of induced abortion in India [24, 42].

In this study, household economic status was found as a function of healthcare decisions in India, particularly in rural settings; the findings support Andersen’s behavioral model. The socio-economically deprived individuals in rural settings mainly sought treatment from untrained healthcare providers [33]. As a result, women from socio-economically disadvantaged groups in rural settings who wanted to have an induced abortion typically sought untrained healthcare professionals.

Policy implications

Our current study’s findings reveal some policy implications. First, an in-depth investigation into the reasons for unsafe abortions in high-focus regions in India is required. Second, safe abortion facilities at the village or ward level are required to ensure service availability and accessibility on the ground level. Third, it could be possible to prevent unsafe abortion by enhancing reproductive health services and reducing unintended pregnancies. Finally, a collaborative negotiation among community-level religious, political, administrative, health representatives and people will be beneficial in spreading fundamental understanding about the updated Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 2021, and safe abortion services to the grass-roots level.

Strengths and limitations

The current study has several merits: First, this is the first study to contextualize factors that contribute to unsafe abortion in urban and rural settings. Second, this study systematically examines the similarities and differences between pre-defined factors for healthcare utilization by Andersen and the Indian context. These will be useful for researchers and policymakers to formulate more lenient abortion legislation and healthcare coverage with considering the prevalent risk factors for unsafe abortion in rural and urban India.

Despite having certain advantages, the study also had significant drawbacks. First, the extent of unsafe abortion practices may differ because the data was gathered through self-reporting. Second, the study is restricted to capturing causal relationships between outcome and explanatory variables because of the cross-sectional structure of the data. The current study did not consider other individual-level factors such as self-reluctance to use safe abortion treatments due to stigma, in-law’s disapproval, and societal factors. Finally, selection bias in the study sample may impact the outcomes.

Conclusion

The present study found significant rural-urban divides in unsafe abortion practices based on socio-demographic status. Young women were the most vulnerable regarding unsafe abortion practices in India, particularly in urban settings. The geographical disparity in unsafe abortion practice was found noticeable in India, suggesting that geographical region is an important predisposing factor of reproductive healthcare utilization. Wealth status and unmet need for family planning were found to be enabling and need factors for unsafe abortions in rural India. The present study suggests that there is a need for multi-sectorial programs to reach the target groups with high-unsafe abortion practices. Furthermore, government intervention should also focus on promoting exposure to the local mass media to enhance knowledge and understanding of safety measures for pregnancy termination.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset analysed during the current study are available in the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) repository, https://dhsprogram.com/data/available-datasets.cfm.

Abbreviations

OR:

Odds ratio

IIPS:

International Institute for Population Sciences

NFHS:

National Family Health Survey

MTP:

Medical Termination of Pregnancy

SCs/STs:

Scheduled tribes and castes

OBCs:

Other Backward Classes

CI:

Confidence interval

References

  1. Grimes DA, Benson J, Singh S, Romero M, Ganatra B, Okonofua FE, et al. Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic. Lancet. 2006;368(9550):1908–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Singh S. Global consequences of unsafe abortion. Women Health. 2010;6(6):849–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. World Health Organisation. Unsafe abortion Global and regional estimates of the incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality in 2003. Geneva: WHO; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Åhman E, Shah IH. Unsafe abortion: Global and regional estimates of the incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality in 2008. Geneva: WHO; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  5. World Health Organization. Reproductive health strategy to accelerate progress towards the attainment of international development goals and targets. Geneva: WHO; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Government of India India’s vision FP 2020. MoHFW, New Delhi.2014. https://advancefamilyplanning.org/sites/default/files/resources/FP2020-Vision-Document%20India.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb 2022.

  7. Banerjee SK, Andersen K. Exploring the pathways of unsafe abortion in Madhya Pradesh, India. Global Public Health. 2012;7(8):882–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Arambepola C, Rajapaksa LC. Decision making on unsafe abortions in Sri Lanka: a case-control study. Reprod Health. 2014;11(1):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Singh S, Darroch JE. Adding it up: Costs and benefits of contraceptive services. New York: Guttmacher Institute and UNFPA; 2012. p. 1269–86.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Malhotra A, Nyblade L, Parasuraman S, MacQuarrie K, Kashyap N, Walia S. Realizing reproductive choice and rights. Abortion and contraception in India. Washington, DC: ICRW; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ganatra B, Gerdts C, Rossier C, Johnson BR Jr, Tunçalp Ö, Assifi A, et al. Global, regional, and subregional classification of abortions by safety, 2010–14: estimates from a Bayesian hierarchical model. Lancet. 2017;390(10110):2372–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Sedgh G, Singh S, Shah IH, Ahman E, Henshaw SK, Bankole A. Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008. Obstet Anesth Dig. 2013;33(1):15–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. National Health Mission. Comprehensive abortion care: Provider’s manual. New Delhi: Maternal Health Division, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. GoI; 2014. http://nhm.gov.in/images/pdf/programmes/maternalhealth/guidelines/CAC_Providers_Manual.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  14. Stillman M, Frost JJ, Singh S, Moore AM, Kalyanwala S. Abortion in India: a literature review. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2014. p. 12–4.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Government of India. The medical termination of pregnancy act: act No. 34, 1971. New Delhi: GoI; 1971. http://tcw.nic.in/Acts/MTP-Act-1971.pdf Accessed 8 June 2022

    Google Scholar 

  16. Arnold F, Kishor S, Roy TK. Sex-selective abortions in India. Popul Dev Rev. 2002;28(4):759–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Varkey P, Balakrishna PP, Prasad JH, Abraham S, Joseph A. The reality of unsafe abortion in a rural community in South India. Reprod Health Matters. 2000;8(16):83–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yokoe R, Rowe R, Choudhury SS, Rani A, Zahir F, Nair M. Unsafe abortion and abortion-related death among 1.8 million women in India. BMJ. Glob Health. 2019;4(3):e001491.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sharma P, Pradhan MR. Abortion care seeking in India: patterns and predictors. J Biosoc Sci. 2020;52(3):353–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Khan ME, Barge S, Philip G. Abortion in India: an overview. Soc Change. 1996;26(3–4):208–15.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gupte M, Bandewar S, Pisal H. Abortion needs of women in India: a case study of rural Maharashtra. Reprod Health Matters. 1997;5(9):77–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ganatra B, Hirve S. Induced abortions among adolescent women in rural Maharashtra, India. Reprod Health Matters. 2002;10(19):76–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sebastian MP, Khan ME, Sebastian D. Unintended Pregnency and Aboration in India with focus on Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha. New Delhi: Population Council; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rahaman M, Rana MJ, Roy A, Chouhan P. Spatial heterogeneity and socio-economic correlates of unmet need for spacing contraception in India: Evidences from National Family Health Survey, 2015–16. Clin Epidemiol Global Health. 2022;15:101012.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Banerjee S. Determinants of rural-urban differential in healthcare utilization among the elderly population in India. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. IIPS, ICF. India national family health survey NFHS-4 2015–16. Mumbai: IIPS and ICF; 2017. p. 1255–9.

    Google Scholar 

  27. World Health Organization. Unsafe abortion incidence and mortality: global and regional levels in 2008 and trends during 1990-2008. Geneva: WHO; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ricketts TC, Goldsmith LJ. Access in health services research: the battle of the frame works. Nurs Outlook. 2005;53(6):274–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Andersen RM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? J Health Soc Behav. 1995;36:1–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Khatri RB, Poudel S, Ghimire PR. Factors associated with unsafe abortion practices in Nepal: pooled analysis of the 2011 and 2016 Nepal demographic and health surveys. PLoS One. 2019;14(10):e0223385.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Shekhar C, Alagarajan M, Ranjan PM. Sources, providers and self-reported complications among Indian women seeking induced abortion: evidence from the national family health survey (2015–16). Int J Sex Health. 2018;30(4):366–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jejeebhoy SJ, Zavier AJ, Acharya R, Kalyanwala S. Increasing access to safe abortion in rural Maharashtra: outcomes of a comprehensive abortion care model: Population Council; 2011. https://knowledgecommons.popcouncil.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=departments_sbsr-rh

  33. Dash A, Mohanty SK. Do poor people in the poorer states pay more for healthcare in India? BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Shaikh Z, Abbassi RM, Rizwan N, Abbasi S. Morbidity and mortality due to unsafe abortion in Pakistan. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2010;110(1):47–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sundaram A, Juarez F, Bankole A, Singh S. Factors associated with abortion-seeking and obtaining a safe abortion in Ghana. Stud Fam Plan. 2012;43(4):273–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Yogi A, KC P, Neupane S. Prevalence and factors associated with abortion and unsafe abortion in Nepal: a nationwide cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):1–0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Saikia N. Gender disparities in health care expenditures and financing strategies (HCFS) for inpatient care in India. SSM Popul Health. 2019;9:100372.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Retherford RD, Roy TK. Factors affecting sex-selective abortion in India and 17 major states: National Family Health Survey Subject Reports; 2003. p. 21. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/f5085e17-cdaa-4cfd-9e7e-7dc2a09c76ec/content

  39. Doke PP, Karantaki MV, Deshpande SR. Adverse pregnancy outcomes in rural Maharashtra, India (2008–09): a retrospective cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Singh D, Goli S, Pou L. Repeated induced abortion and son preference in India. Soc Sci Spect. 2015;1(3):181–93.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Amo-Adjei J, Darteh EK. Unmet/met need for contraception and self-reported abortion in Ghana. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2017;1(13):118–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Singh S, Shekhar C, Acharya R, Moore AM, Stillman M, Pradhan MR, et al. The incidence of abortion and unintended pregnancy in India, 2015. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6(1):e111–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) for providing approval to use the dataset in this study. We would also like to thank anonymous reviewers for their critical input in the manuscript. The Authors also grateful to Md Sultan Ali and Aloyara for their continuous support during this work.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Migration & Urban Studies, International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS), Govandi Station Road, Deonar, Mumbai, 400088, India

    Margubur Rahaman & Kailash Chandra Das

  2. Department of Geography, University of Gour Banga, Malda, West Bengal, 732103, India

    Puja Das, Pradip Chouhan & Avijit Roy

  3. Department of Geography, Malda College, Malda, West Bengal, 732101, India

    Avijit Roy & Nanigopal Kapasia

Authors
  1. Margubur Rahaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Puja Das
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pradip Chouhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kailash Chandra Das
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Avijit Roy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nanigopal Kapasia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MR and KCD conceptualized and designed the study and written the manuscript. MR and NK conducted statistical analysis. KCD, PD and PC assisted with writing/editing. AR and MR prepared the final draft of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

MR is a doctoral researcher of the Department of Migration and Urban Studies at International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, India. He is currently working on reproductive health matters of homeless women in Kolkata megacity, India. The author has published several research articles in highly recognized journals including BMC Public Health, Journal of Biosocial Science, Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health and BMC Women’s Health.

PD is a Ph.D. scholar in geography at the University of Gour Banga, India. Her current research interests include public health issues.

PC is a Professor of Geography at the Department of Geography, University of Gour Banga, India. The author has published several research articles and books in nationally and internationally recognized journals. The author has published several research articles in highly recognized journals including BMC Public Health, BMC Women’s Health, Journal of Health Management, Children, Geo Journal, Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Spatial and Spatio-temporal Epidemiology, PLoS ONE, International journal of infectious diseases, and OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying.

KCD is a Professor in the Department of Migration and Urban Studies at International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, India. The author has publishes several articles and books in many international and indian journals. His research interest includes migration, public health, and social change and urban studies. The author has successfully completed various national and international projects. He is also convenor of South Asian Centre for Labour Mobility and Migrants (SALAM), supported by ILO,IOM, UN Women and other international organisations.

AR is presently working as a State Aided College Teacher (SACT) at the Department of Geography, Malda College, West Bengal, India. His current research interests include child marriage and public health issues. The author has published several research articles in highly recognized journals including BMC Public Health, BMC Women’s Health, The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care, and Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health.

Nanigopal Kapasia is an Assistant Professor of the Department of Geography, Malda College, Malda, India. His current research interests include fertility, contraceptive use, and public health issues. The author has published several research articles in highly recognized journals including BMC Public, Women's Reproductive Health, Children and Youth Service Review, and The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Margubur Rahaman or Avijit Roy.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study is based on secondary data which is available in the public domain. Therefore, ethical approval is not required for conducting this study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rahaman, M., Das, P., Chouhan, P. et al. Examining the rural-urban divide in predisposing, enabling, and need factors of unsafe abortion in India using Andersen’s behavioral model. BMC Public Health 22, 1497 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13912-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13912-4

Keywords

  • Unsafe abortion
  • Rural-urban
  • Andersen’s behavioral model
  • India

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us