Skip to main content

Table 3 Partner involvement in abortion experience by background and abortion characteristicsa

From: Partner involvement in abortion trajectories and subsequent abortion safety in Nigeria and Côte d’Ivoire

 

Nigeria

(N = 1144)

Côte d'Ivoire

(N = 347)

No partner involvement

Any partner involvement

p-value

No partner involvement

Any partner involvement

p-value

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Total

439

38.2

705

61.8

 

191

55.0

156

45.0

 

Background characteristics

Age at abortion

    

0.156

    

0.068

10–19

107

43.0

142

57.0

 

92

60.5

60

39.5

 

20–29

211

38.0

344

62.0

 

74

53.6

64

46.4

 

30 + 

113

35.1

209

64.9

 

22

42.3

30

57.7

 

Marital status at abortion

    

 < 0.001

    

 < 0.001

Married

216

31.2

476

68.8

 

52

34.9

97

65.1

 

Not married

220

49.0

229

51.0

 

139

70.2

59

29.8

 

Residence at abortionb

    

0.817

    

0.382

Rural

173

38.8

273

61.2

 

66

52.0

61

48.0

 

Urban

266

38.1

432

61.9

 

125

56.8

95

43.2

 

Highest level of school attendedc

    

0.688

    

0.284

None

39

33.6

77

66.4

 

58

53.2

51

46.8

 

Primary

61

40.7

89

59.3

 

79

60.3

52

39.7

 

Secondary

224

38.5

358

61.5

 

48

52.7

43

47.3

 

Higher

115

38.9

181

61.1

 

6

37.5

10

62.5

 

Parity at abortion

    

0.003

    

0.128

0

219

43.0

290

57.0

 

89

59.7

60

40.3

 

1 + 

219

34.5

415

65.5

 

102

51.5

96

48.5

 

Wealth tertile at interview

    

0.759

    

0.119

Low

128

37.5

213

62.5

 

47

47.5

52

52.5

 

Middle

153

39.7

232

60.3

 

76

61.3

48

38.7

 

High

155

37.4

259

62.6

 

67

54.5

56

45.5

 

State at interview

    

0.620

    

–

Anambra

76

39.8

115

60.2

 

–

–

–

–

 

Kaduna

77

36.0

137

64.0

 

–

–

–

–

 

Lagos

84

35.3

154

64.7

 

–

–

–

–

 

Nasarawa

70

42.4

95

57.6

 

–

–

–

–

 

Rivers

110

40.3

163

59.7

 

–

–

–

–

 

Taraba

22

38.4

41

61.6

 

–

–

–

–

 

Abortion characteristics

Method

    

 < 0.001

    

 < 0.001

Surgery

74

23.3

243

76.7

 

42

38.2

68

61.8

 

Mifepristone and/or misoprostol

24

33.3

48

66.7

 

5

38.5

8

61.5

 

Other pills

139

45.9

164

54.1

 

45

65.2

24

34.8

 

Injection

41

30.8

92

69.2

 

0

0.0

2

100.0

 

Traditional methods/other

158

50.5

155

49.5

 

99

64.7

54

35.3

 

Source

    

 < 0.001

    

 < 0.001

Public facility

23

19.7

94

80.3

 

22

37.3

37

62.7

 

Private facility

102

27.9

264

72.1

 

38

44.7

47

55.3

 

Pharmacy/chemist

153

45.5

183

54.5

 

11

64.7

6

35.3

 

Other

157

49.4

161

50.6

 

120

64.5

66

35.5

 

Tried multiple things

    

0.134

    

0.711

Yes

82

34.0

159

66.0

 

36

57.1

27

42.9

 

No

353

39.3

545

60.7

 

155

54.6

129

45.4

 

Abortion was most unsafed

    

 < 0.001

    

 < 0.001

Yes

288

49.2

297

50.8

 

129

65.8

67

34.2

 

No

146

26.6

403

73.4

 

62

41.1

89

58.9

 
  1. Bolded p-values indicate significance at p < 0.05
  2. a For respondents who made multiple attempts over the course of their abortion experience, only the first attempt is represented in our analyses
  3. b Created based on respondent report of having lived in a village (rural) or a town or city (urban) at the time of the abortion
  4. c Based on level of school attending at time of abortion, if attending, or highest level attended according to baseline survey interview. This assumes that respondents who were not attending school at the time of their abortion had already completed their schooling
  5. d Abortions categorized as "most unsafe" if using a non-recommended method, by a non-clinical provider
Back to article page

BMC Women's Health

ISSN: 1472-6874

Contact us