Current issue
Archive
About the Journal
About us
Aims and Scope
Indexing and Abstracting
Editorial Office
Open Access Policy
Publication Ethics
Contact
For Authors
Editorial Policy
Peer Review Policy
Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
Copyright & Licensing
Publication Fees
Fast-Track Paper Publication Option
Conflict Interest Guidance
Submit an Article
Special Issues
News & Editorials
“Fake,” “Predatory,” and “Pseudo” Journals: Charlatans Threatening Trust in Science
Shifting the Journal submission-review system to the Editorial System Manuscript December 27, 2017.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Stigmatizing attitudes, beliefs, and actions of women towards abortion in rural regions with high fertility
1
Nursing Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, Batman University, Batman, TURKEY
2
Nursing Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, Mus Alparslan University, Mus, TURKEY
Publication date: 2022-07-28
Electron J Gen Med 2022;19(6):em401
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Objectives:
The study aims to determine the stigmatizing attitudes, beliefs, and actions of women towards abortion in rural and conservative areas where fertility is high.
Methods:
The research is cross-sectional. It was carried out in Mus State Hospital between 28 March-28 April 2022. The sample of the study consisted of 499 women. Introductory information form and stigmatizing attitudes, beliefs, and actions scale towards abortion were used as data collection tools.
Findings:
The participants’ mean score of stigmatizing attitudes, beliefs, and actions towards abortion scale 69.5, negative stereotypes 28.3, discrimination and exclusion 29.1, and fear of contagion sub-dimension 11.9. The mean score of the scale was found to be significantly higher in women who are single, between 20-35 ages, live in the city center and nuclear family, have an undergraduate or above education level, work (p<0.05). There was a negative correlation between the scale mean score of women and the number of pregnancies, births, living children; and a positive correlation between the scale mean score and the number of abortions (p<0.05).
Conclusions:
It was found out that stigmatizing and negative attitudes, beliefs, and actions towards abortion are high among women in rural regions with high fertility.
The study aims to determine the stigmatizing attitudes, beliefs, and actions of women towards abortion in rural and conservative areas where fertility is high.
Methods:
The research is cross-sectional. It was carried out in Mus State Hospital between 28 March-28 April 2022. The sample of the study consisted of 499 women. Introductory information form and stigmatizing attitudes, beliefs, and actions scale towards abortion were used as data collection tools.
Findings:
The participants’ mean score of stigmatizing attitudes, beliefs, and actions towards abortion scale 69.5, negative stereotypes 28.3, discrimination and exclusion 29.1, and fear of contagion sub-dimension 11.9. The mean score of the scale was found to be significantly higher in women who are single, between 20-35 ages, live in the city center and nuclear family, have an undergraduate or above education level, work (p<0.05). There was a negative correlation between the scale mean score of women and the number of pregnancies, births, living children; and a positive correlation between the scale mean score and the number of abortions (p<0.05).
Conclusions:
It was found out that stigmatizing and negative attitudes, beliefs, and actions towards abortion are high among women in rural regions with high fertility.
REFERENCES (34)
1.
Hanschmidt F, Linde K, Hilbert A, Riedel‐Heller SG, Kersting A. Abortion stigma: A systematic review. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2016;48(4):169-77. https://doi.org/10.1363/48e851... PMid:27037848.
2.
Sedgh G, Bearak J, Singh S, et al. Abortion incidence between 1990 and 2014: Global, regional, and sub-regional levels and trends. Lancet. 2016;388(10041):258-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-....
3.
Bradley SEK, Croft T, Rutstein SO. The impact of contraceptive failure on unintended births and induced abortions: Estimates and strategies for reduction. DHS Analytical Studies No. 22, Calverton, Maryland, USA: ICF Macro. 2011. Available at: https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pd... (Accessed: 4 June 2022).
4.
Shellenberg KM, Moore AM, Bankole A, et al. Social stigma and disclosure about induced abortion: Results from an exploratory study. Glob Public Health. 2011;6(1):S111-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/174416... PMid:21745033.
5.
Makleff S, Wilkins R, Wachsmann H, et al. Exploring stigma and social norms in women’s abortion experiences and their expectations of care. Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2019;27(3):50-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/264103... PMid:31551027 PMCid:PMC7887901.
6.
Sesen E, Unalan D. Framing of news about abortion law in written press: Hurriyet, Evrensel and Yeni Safak sample. Adnan Menderes Uni Fourth Force Int Refereed J. 2019;2(1):53-66. https://doi.org/10.33464/dordu....
7.
Women’s reproductive health services and abortion experiences research report. Women’s Human Rights-New Solutions Association. 2021. Available at: https://kadinininsanhaklari.or... (Accessed: 4 June 2022).
8.
Arifoglu B. An ethical review on abortion in Turkey. Union of Turkish Bar Assoc Rev. 2020;150(33):123-35.
9.
Reproductive rights in Turkey with cases. Human Resource Development Foundation, Turap Promotional Publications. 2012. Available at: http://www.ikgv.org/pdf/Vakaka... (Accessed: 4 June 2022).
10.
Legal but not available: Abortion services in public hospitals in Turkey-2020. Kadir Has University Gender and Women’s Studies Research Center. 2020.Available at: https://gender.khas.edu.tr/sit... (Accessed: 4 June 2022).
11.
Controversial issues in Turkish abortion legislation. Presidency of Turkish Health Institutes, Turkish Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Institute. 2017. Available at: https://www.tuseb.gov.tr/taces... (Accessed: 4 June 2022).
12.
Keskin, I. Abortion debates and feminism. Fe J. 2015;7(1):85-95. https://doi.org/10.1501/Fe0001....
13.
Cockrill K, Herold S, Upadhyay U, Baum S, Blanchard K, Grossman D. Addressing abortion stigma through service delivery: A white paper. Sea Change Program, Ibis Reproductive Health, ANSIRH, or INROADS. Advancing New Standarts in Reproductive Health. 2013. Available at: https://www.ibisreproductivehe... (Accessed: 4 June 2022).
14.
Cockrill K, Upadhyay UD, Turan J, Greene Foster D. The stigma of having an abortion: Development of a scale and characteristics of women experiencing abortion stigma. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2013;45(2):79-88. https://doi.org/10.1363/450791... PMid:23750622.
15.
Kumar A, Hessini L, Mitchell EM. Conceptualising abortion stigma. Cult Health Sex. 2009;11(6):625-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/136910... PMid:19437175.
16.
Norris A, Bessett D, Steinberg JR, Kavanaugh ML, De Zordo S, Becker D. Abortion stigma: A reconceptualization of constituents, causes, and consequences. Women’s Health Issues. 2011;21(3):S49-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.... PMid:21530840.
17.
Grossman D, Holt K, Peña M, et al. Self-induction of abortion among women in the United States. Reprod Health Matters. 2010;18(36):136-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-....
18.
Aniteye P, O’Brien B, Mayhew SH. Stigmatized by association: Challenges for abortion service providers in Ghana. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:486. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913... PMid:27612453 PMCid:PMC5018197.
19.
Astbury-Ward E, Parry O, Carnwell R. Stigma, abortion, and disclosure—findings from a qualitative study. J Sex Med. 2012;9(12):3137-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743... PMid:22239919.
20.
Warriner IK, Shah IH. Preventing unsafe abortion and its consequences: Priorities for research and action. Guttmacher Institute. 2006. Available at: https://www.guttmacher.org/sit... (Accessed: 4 June 2022).
21.
Rominski SD, Darteh E, Dickson KS, Munro-Kramer M. Attitudes toward abortion among students at the University of Cape Coast, Ghana. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2017;11:53-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc... PMid:28159129.
22.
Shellenberg KM, Hessini L, Levandowski BA. Developing a scale to measure stigmatizing attitudes and beliefs about women who have abortions: Results from Ghana and Zambia. Women Health, 2014;54(7):599-616. https://doi.org/10.1080/036302... PMid:25074064.
23.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175-91. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf0319... PMid:17695343.
24.
Guner O, Ozturk R. Turkish validity and relibility study of stigmatizing attitudes, beliefs and actions scale towards abortion. Int Anatolia Acad Onl J. 2021;7(1):65-80.
25.
Millar E. Abortion stigma as a social process. Womens Stud Int Forum. 2020;78:102328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif....
26.
Yegon EK, Mwaniki PK, Echoka E, Osur J. Abortion related stigma: A case study of abortion stigma in regions with high and low incidences of unsafe abortion. East Afr Med J. 2016;93(3):107-16.
27.
Cutler AS, Lundsberg LS, White MA, Stanwood NL, Gariepy AM. Characterizing community-level abortion stigma in the United States. Contraception, 2021;104(3):305-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cont... PMid:33789081.
28.
Patev AJ, Hood KB, Hall CJ. The interacting roles of abortion stigma and gender on attitudes toward abortion legality. Pers Individ Differ. 2019;146:87-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid....
29.
Cockrill K, Biggs A. Can stories reduce abortion stigma? Findings from a longitudinal cohort study. Cult Health Sex. 2017;20(3):335-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/136910... PMid:28705119.
30.
Håkansson M, Oguttu M, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Makenzius M. Human rights versus societal norms: A mixed methods study among healthcare providers on social stigma related to adolescent abortion and contraceptive use in Kisumu, Kenya. BMJ Glob Health. 2018;3(2):e000608. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-... PMid:29527357 PMCid:PMC5841529.
31.
Cockrill K, Nack A. “I’m not that type of person”: Managing the stigma of having an abortion. Deviant Behav. 2013;34(12):973-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/016396....
32.
Turkish Statistical Institute (TURSTAT)-TUIK 2021. Birth statistics. 2022. Available at: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulte... (Accessed: 4 June 2022).
33.
Durmus E, Dolek I. Geographical distribution of the settlement types in the provıice of Mus. Int J Geogr Geogr Educ. 2019;39(39):256-78. https://doi.org/10.32003/iggei....
34.
Arslan O. A sustainable economic development based on natural agriculture and livestock breeding in Mus province. J Soc Scienc Mus Alparslan Uni. 2018;6(1):75-90.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2516-3507 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
