Abstract
Background
Unintended pregnancy is one of the most common reproductive health problems. The problem makes women with disabilities doubly burdened by their disabilities. The previous evidences are inconsistent and do not address all women with disabilities. The study aimed to assess the prevalence of unintended pregnancy and its associated risk factors among women with disabilities in Dale and Wonsho districts and Yirgalem city administration central Sidama National Regional State, Ethiopia.
Methods
A community-based cross-sectional study design was conducted among 355 randomly selected women with disabilities living in the selected districts from June 20 to July 15, 2022. The data were collected through face-to-face interviews using a structured questionnaire. A multilevel logistic regression analysis model was employed to identify factors associated with an unintended pregnancy. The adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to report the measures of associations.
Results
In this study, the prevalence of unintended pregnancy among women with disabilities was 65.6% (95% CI: 60.4, 70.6). After adjusting for potential confounding variables, middle economic status (AOR = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.02, 4.20), giving birth (AOR = 2.20; 95% CI: 1.21, 3.99), extremity paralysis types of disability (AOR = 0.26; 95% CI: 0.12, 0.57), living in urban residences (AOR = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.12, 0.40) and alcohol using (AOR = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.11, 0.74) were risk factors with unintended pregnancy.
Conclusions
Unintended pregnancy among women with disabilities is remarkably high in central Sidama National Regional State, Ethiopia. Economic status, giving birth, types of disability, residence, and alcohol use were factors associated with an unintended pregnancy. As a result, economic empowerment, strengthening education and information about unintended pregnancy and its prevention strategies in rural settings are vital.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-023-05848-3.
Keywords: Disability, Unintended pregnancy, Prevalence, Associated risk factors, Ethiopia, Multilevel analysis
Background
Women with disabilities desire children in the same way that women without disabilities do, and they intend to have as many children as they can support [1]. Women with disabilities are discriminated against and excluded from various reproductive health services in the majority of developing countries, including Ethiopia [2, 3]. Due to different barriers, women with disabilities cannot access and use reproductive health services and could be exposed to reproductive health problems, mainly unintended pregnancy [4].
An unintended pregnancy is a pregnancy that occurs when a woman does not want to have a child at the time of conception [5]. Women with disabilities also suffer from unintended pregnancy and its effects, which makes them doubly burdened with their disabilities. They may go to unsafe abortion services to terminate the unintended pregnancy. Finally, they may lose their lives due to the complications of unsafe abortion [6].
A study conducted in the United States of America revealed that the proportion of unwanted pregnancies is higher (53%) among women with disabilities than among women without disabilities (36%) [7]. Another study from Cameroon also showed that unintended pregnancy among women with physical disabilities was common [8]. In our country, Ethiopia, the prevalence of unintended pregnancy among women with disabilities ranges from 15.4% [9] in Bahirdar to 67% in Addis Ababa [10, 11].
Different risk factors that are associated with unintended pregnancy among women with mental disabilities were identified by previous studies. A study conducted in South Africa marital status, level of education, ethnicity, and substance use as the main factors determining unintended pregnancy among women with disabilities [12].
The previous studies conducted in Ethiopia [9–11] did not identify the associated factors for unintended pregnancy among women with disabilities. There is also a disparity in the prevalence of unintended pregnancy. On the other hand, the previous studies had considered only urban women residents with disabilities and deaf and blind women with disabilities.
Therefore, this study aimed to determine the prevalence of unintended pregnancy and its associated risk factors among women with disabilities by considering rural and urban residency, all types of disability (except mental disability) and individual and community-level risk factors that are associated with an unintended pregnancy.
Methods
Study design and setting
A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted from June 20 to July 15, 2022. The study was conducted in Central Sidama Regional State, Ethiopia. The region report (2021) showed that the total population of the Central Sidama is 469,455 [13, 14]. Of these, 82,625 are people with disabilities. Based on the Labor and Social Affairs Office report (2021) and the WHO estimation [15], 19,207 people with disabilities are estimated to be of reproductive age. The details of the study settings were described in the previously published project [16].
Population
Women with disabilities in central Sidama National Regional State were the source population. Women who have a pregnancy history or were currently pregnant and lived in the selected kebeles for at least six months were the study population, except those who cannot see and hear and are seriously ill during the data collection time.
Sample size and sampling procedure
The sample size was determined by using Epi Info version 7 software with the following assumptions: a 95% confidence interval with a 15.4% prevalence of unintended pregnancy among reproductive-age women with disability [9] a level of significance (α) of 0.05, a 5% margin of error (d = 0.05), and a design effect of 1.64. The sample size for associated risk factors of unintended pregnancy was also computed using Epi-Info version 7 with the assumptions of a two-sided confidence level of 95%, a power of 80, a ratio of exposed to unexposed subjects, percent outcome in the unexposed group and percent outcome in the exposed group. Accordingly, the maximum (94) sample size was determined using substance use as a factor [12]. The sample size from the prevalence of 330 was larger than the associated factors’ maximum sample size of 94. After adjusting for an anticipated 10% nonresponse rate, the final sample size was 363. Then, the sample size was proportionally allocated to the 30 selected kebeles (20 rural and 10 urban) based on the number of women with disabilities who have a pregnancy history or are currently pregnant. Before conducting this study, a house-to-house census was conducted to determine the eligible women with disabilities in each kebele. The study participants were selected using a simple random sampling technique.
Variables
The outcome variable was unintended pregnancy. Whereas the independent variables were marital status, educational status, ethnicity, and substance use (alcohol, chat) were the exposure variables.
Data collection procedures and quality assurance
The data collection tool was adopted from the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy (LMUP) standard tool [17]. The data collection procedures and quality assurance were described elsewhere [16]. The trained data collectors did a pre-test on 19 (5%) women with disabilities who have a pregnancy history or are currently pregnant in Lokie and Tiltie kebele, Hawassa city, to check the tools, and corrections were made based on the feedback. The principal investigator (PI) monitored and controlled the overall process of data collection and made appropriate corrections for any issues that could be raised during data collection. The PI also checked the completeness of the questions daily.
Outcome measurement
Unintended pregnancy was measured using the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy (LMUP) [17]. The tool had six questions (on contraceptive use, timing, intention, desire for a baby, partner discussion, and pre-conception preparations) through which women reported the circumstances of their current or recent pregnancy. Each item in the tool was scored 0, 1, or 2 according to the LMUP scoring guidelines [17]. The scores were summed across all six items, resulting in a total score of 0 to 12. Then the total LMUP scores of 0 to 3 are considered an unintended pregnancy [17, 18].
Data management and analysis
Following collection, the data were imported into Stata version 16 for analysis using the “SSC install kobo2stata” command. The details of data management and analysis were described elsewhere [16]. The ICC of 0.16 and its chi-square (P < 0.001) significance level showed that using a multilevel analysis model is reasonable.
Results
Socio-demographic characteristics of study participants
A total of 355 women with disabilities participated in this study, with a 97.80% response rate. The ages of women with disabilities ranged from 15 to 48 years, with a mean (standard deviation) age of 31.25 (5.72) years. The majority (86.48%) of the study participants were married. 65% of women with disabilities had no formal education (were illiterate) and most (98%) of the study participants were not employed (Table 1).
Table 1.
Socio-demographic characteristics of women with disabilities in Central Sidama Regional Stata, Ethiopia, 2022 (N = 355)
| Variable | Number | Percent | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age in years mean (SD) | 31.25(5.72) | ||
| Religion | Protestant | 277 | 78.03 |
| Orthodox | 42 | 11.83 | |
| Muslim | 18 | 5.07 | |
| Catholic | 18 | 5.07 | |
| Marital status of the participants | Married | 307 | 86.48 |
| Never married | 48 | 13.52 | |
| Residency | Rural | 214 | 60.28 |
| Urban | 141 | 39.72 | |
| Participants educational status | Primary school | 73 | 20.56 |
| Secondary school | 42 | 11.83 | |
| Vocational and technique | 8 | 2.25 | |
| Unable to read and write | 232 | 65.35 | |
| Employment status | Employed | 7 | 2 |
| Unemployed | 343 | 98 | |
| Occupation | Have occupation | 55 | 15.49 |
| No occupation | 300 | 84.51 | |
| Self-perception | Good | 261 | 73.52 |
| Bad | 94 | 26.48 | |
| Wealth index of household | Low | 124 | 34.93 |
| Middle | 118 | 33.24 | |
| High | 113 | 31.83 | |
| Living with | Husband | 281 | 79.15 |
| Family member | 61 | 17.19 | |
| Others* | 13 | 3.66 |
*: Peers, relatives
Prevalence of unintended pregnancy among women with disabilities
In this study, the prevalence of unintended pregnancy among women with disabilities was 65.6% (95% CI: 60.4, 70.6). Of these, 47.32% (95% CI: 42, 52.7) were women with hearing disabilities; 28.73% (95% CI: 24.08, 33.74) were women with vision disabilities; 20.56% (95% CI: 16.48, 25.15) were women with extremity disabilities; and 3.40% (95% CI: 1.76, 5.83) of women at wheel-chair.
Factors associated with unintended pregnancy among women with disabilities
Random effect model
In the null model (model I), 16.11% of the variability in unintended pregnancy occurred at the community level (kebele level) and could be attributed to other unobserved community factors (ICC = 0.16), as supported by the chi-square (P < 0.001). This evidence also demonstrated the rationale for employing a multilevel analysis model.
Fixed effect model
In the bivariable logistic regression, marital status, occupation, self-perception, economic status, giving birth, types of disability, alcohol use, chat use, and residence were associated risk factors for unintended pregnancy. But in the multivariable, multilevel logistic regression analysis, economic status, giving birth, types of disability, residence, and alcohol use were significantly associated with an unintended pregnancy.
Women with disabilities having a middle economic status had a twofold (AOR = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.02, 4.20) higher likelihood of unintended pregnancy than those with a low economic status. When comparing women who gave birth to those who did not the odds of an unintended pregnancy increased by twofold (AOR = 2.20; 95% CI: 1.21, 3.99) among those who gave birth. In terms of disability type, those with extremity disabilities had a 74% (AOR = 0.26; 95% CI: 0.12, 0.57) lower risk of unintended pregnancy compared with those with visual disabilities. Women with disabilities living in urban residences had 78% (AOR = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.12, 0.40) lower odds of unintended pregnancy compared with those living in rural residences. Those who use alcohol have a 72% (AOR = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.11, 0.74) lower likelihood of unintended pregnancy compared with women with disabilities who do not use alcohol (Table 2).
Table 2.
Multilevel logistic regression analysis for factors associated with unintended pregnancy among women with disabilities in Central Sidama, 2022
| Variables | Pregnancy | COR with 95% CI | AOR with 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wanted | Unintended | ||||
| Marital status | 14 | 34 | Never married | 0.59 (0.27,1.29 )* | 0.68 (0.31, 1.47) |
| 108 | 199 | Married | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Education | 85 | 147 | Illiterate | 1.29 (0.77,2.18) | |
| 37 | 86 | Literate | 1.00 | ||
| Occupation | 15 | 40 | Yes | 0.62 (0.31,1.26)* | 0.79 (0.38, 1.66) |
| 107 | 199 | No | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Self-perception | 38 | 56 | Bad | 1.55 (0.89,2.68)* | 1.38 (0.73, 2.61) |
| 84 | 177 | Good | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Age (Years) | 37 | 54 | 35 to 48 | 1.18 (0.46,3.03) | |
| 73 | 162 | 25 to 34 | 0.84 (0.34,2.05) | ||
| 12 | 17 | 15 to 24 | 1.00 | ||
| Wealth index | 52 | 61 | Rich | 2.06 (1.13,3.78)* | 1.54 (0.82, 2.90) |
| 38 | 80 | Middle | 1.46(0.79,2.68) | 2.07 (1.02, 4.20)** | |
| 32 | 92 | Poor | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Gave birth | 85 | 137 | Yes | 1.72(1.02,2.93)* | 2.20 (1.21, 3.99)** |
| 37 | 96 | No | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Types of Disability | 64 | 104 | Hearing | 0.87(0.44, 1.70) | 0.67 (0.38, 1.18) |
| 13 | 60 | Extremity | 0.31(0.13, 0.78)* | 0.26 (0.12, 0.57)** | |
| 2 | 10 | Wheel-chaired | 0.39(0.07,2.09) | 0.64 (0.11, 3.77) | |
| 43 | 59 | Vision | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Alcohol use | 7 | 55 | Yes | 0.24(0.10,0.57)* | 0.28 (0.11, 0.74)** |
| 115 | 182 | No | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Chat use | 6 | 26 | Yes | 0.43(0.16,1.17)* | 0.97 (0.32, 2.97) |
| 116 | 207 | No | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Residence | 24 | 117 | Urban | 0.24 (0.13,0.43)* | 0.22 (0.12, 0.40)** |
| 98 | 116 | Rural | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
*: P-value < 0.2; **: P-value < 0.05; AOR: Adjusted odds ratio; CI: Confidence interval;
Discussion
The prevalence of unintended pregnancy among women with disabilities was 65.6%. After controlling for potential confounding variables, economic status, giving birth, disability types, residence, and alcohol use were found to be significantly associated with unintended pregnancy.
The prevalence of 65.6% in this study is almost similar to studies conducted in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: 62.5% in 2011 [11] and 67% in 2017 [10]. However, it is much higher than a study conducted in Bahirdar City, Ethiopia (15.4%) [9]. The possible reason might be that the study in Bahirdar City did not use a standard unintended pregnancy measurement tool. It simply used one yes-or-no question to determine the magnitude of unintended pregnancy, which is prone to bias. The other possible reason might be the difference in data collection approaches. The Bahirdar City study used institution-based techniques, which may have missed the hidden majority of women with unwanted pregnancies in the community.
Regarding economic status, women with disabilities and middle economic status had a higher probability of having an unintended pregnancy compared with those with poor economic status. The possible justification might be that women with disabilities having a better economic income might increase their independence and freedom to enjoy sexual rights, which might expose them to unintended pregnancy. On the other hand, women with disabilities who gave birth had a higher chance of having an unintended pregnancy compared with those who did not give birth. The reason might be the fact that women who gave birth had an increased chance of sexual intercourse, which may have exposed them to unintended pregnancy [19] and could be due to unmet contraceptive needs [20]. Compared with women with vision disabilities, women with extremity disabilities had a lower probability of having an unintended pregnancy. Although it is difficult to compare a study from the United States of America due to socioeconomic and other differences, the national survey results revealed that unintended pregnancy was more common among women with vision disabilities than other disabilities [21]. The possible reason could be that women with extremity paralysis were considered asexual, physically unattractive, and not eligible for sexual intercourse. Due to this and the fear of sociocultural discrimination during pregnancy, the probability of having sexual intercourse and unintended pregnancy was lower than for women with vision disabilities [22, 23]. The other significant factor that is associated with an unintended pregnancy is the residential place of women with disabilities. Those who lived in the urban had a lower risk of having an unintended pregnancy compared with women with disabilities living in rural residence. The possible reason for the difference could be that, in rural residences, there is a high probability of a lack of access to information, transportation to the health facility, and contraceptive access compared with urban residences [24]. The other possible justification could be low socioeconomic status and the presence of sociocultural norms in the rural residence [24, 25]. Regarding alcohol use, women with disabilities who used alcohol had a lower chance of having an unintended pregnancy compared with those who did not use alcohol. This finding is in contrast with the studies conducted in South Africa [12, 26]. The possible reason might be that, in our study, the number of people exposed to alcohol was very limited (62 out of 355 people). Different evidence revealed that alcohol exposure might increase the probability of having sexual relations and unintended pregnancy [27, 28].
The findings of this study could be useful for governmental and non-governmental organizations to alleviate the burden of unintended pregnancy on women with disabilities, which makes them doubly burdened with their disabilities. This study attempted to address all women with disabilities who lived in either urban or rural settings, which may be used to demonstrate the magnitude and associated factors of unintended pregnancy among rural women with disabilities, who are frequently overlooked. The other important strengths of this study were the consideration of kebele level (level 2) factors associated with an unintended pregnancy and the use of a standard unintended pregnancy measurement tool known as the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy (LMUP) [17]. However, limitations should be taken into consideration while we are interpreting the results. The limitation of this study was the exclusion of women with mental disabilities and a lack of generalizability across all types of women with disabilities.
Conclusions
Unintended pregnancy among women with disabilities is remarkably high in central Sidama National Regional State, Ethiopia. Economic status, giving birth, types of disability, residence, and alcohol use were factors associated with an unintended pregnancy. Therefore, informational communication and behavioural change are crucial to changing the risky behaviours of women with disabilities. It is also crucial to develop an appropriate strategy to address issues of unintended pregnancy and its prevention for women residing in rural settings.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the data collectors and the study participants for their valuable contributions to this study. We are also grateful to the Sidama National Regional State Public Health Institute and selected woredas and kebeles for their assistance and permission to undertake this research.
Author contributions
ZT, AG, and TG designed and wrote the proposal. ZT analyses and writes the manuscript. AG and TG commented on and edited the manuscript.
Funding information
The author(s) received no financial support for this study.
Data Availability
All data supporting this information is included in the main document.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study fulfilled with the declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board at the College of Medicine and Health Sciences of Hawassa University with an approval reference number of (Ref. No.): IRB/143/14. After approval, a support letter was written to the Sidama National Regional Public Health Institute. Then, after obtaining the support letter from Sidama National Regional Public Health Institute, the permission and cooperation letter were given to the woreda health offices. Finally, the woreda health offices wrote a permission letter to selected kebeles, asking them to cooperate and give consent to conduct the study. After being informed about the purpose, their rights to participation, and the potential benefits and risks of the study, written informed consent was obtained from the study participants and their guardians to collect the data.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
All the authors declared that there were no financial or personal competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Contributor Information
Zelalem Tenaw, Email: abigiatenaw@gmail.com.
Taye Gari, Email: tayegari@gmail.com.
References
- 1.Ganle JK, Apolot RR, Rugoho T, Sumankuuro J. They are my future’: childbearing desires and motivations among women with disabilities in Ghana-implications for reproductive healthcare. Reproductive Health. 2020;17(1):1–12. doi: 10.1186/s12978-020-01000-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.MacKay Don The United Nations Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Syracuse J Int law Commer. 2006;34:323. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Hosseinpoor AR, Stewart Williams JA, Gautam J, Posarac A, Officer A, Verdes E, et al. Socioeconomic inequality in disability among adults: a multicountry study using the World Health Survey. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(7):1278–86. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.301115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Devkota HR, Kett M. Groce NJBp, childbirth. Societal attitude and behaviours towards women with disabilities in rural Nepal: pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood. 2019;19(1):1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 5.Darroch FJ, Singh Susheela The sexual and reproductive behavior of american women, 1982–1988. Fam Plan Perspect. 1990;22(5):206–14. doi: 10.2307/2135494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Rasch V. Unsafe abortion and postabortion care–an overview. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90(7):692–700. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01165.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Horner-Johnson W, Dissanayake M, Wu JP, Caughey AB, Darney BG. Pregnancy intendedness by maternal disability status and type in the United States. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2020;52(1):31–8. doi: 10.1363/psrh.12130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Bremer K, Cockburn L, Ruth A. Reproductive health experiences among women with physical disabilities in the Northwest Region of Cameroon. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2010;108(3):211–3. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.10.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Tessema Abel Lule BMA, Bunare Tsion Samuel Assessment of the magnitude and associated factors of unmet need for family planning among women of reproductive age group with disabilities in Bahir Dar City, Amhara region, north West Ethiopia. Open J Epidemiol. 2015;5(01):51–8. doi: 10.4236/ojepi.2015.51007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Yimer Awol Seid MLM. Modern contraceptive methods knowledge and practice among blind and deaf women in Ethiopia. A cross-sectional survey. BMC Womens Health. 2019;19(1):1–13. doi: 10.1186/s12905-019-0850-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Alemu T, Fantahun M. Sexual and reproductive health status and related problems of young people with disabilities in selected associations of people with disability, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Ethiop Med J. 2011;49(2):97–108. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Du Toit E, Jordaan E, Niehaus D, Koen L, Leppanen J. Risk factors for unplanned pregnancy in women with mental illness living in a developing country. Arch Women Ment Health. 2018;21(3):323–31. doi: 10.1007/s00737-017-0797-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Sidama Region Health Bureau . Health facility data with Catchment Population (updated Meskerem 2014 E.C). Hawassa. Ethiopia: Sidama Region Health Bureau; 2021. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Sidama Region Health Bureau . Health facility and population prifile. Hawassa, Ethiopia: Sidama Region Health Bureau; 2022. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Jerome Bickenbach. The World Report on Disability. The World Report on Disability. 2011;26(5):655-8.
- 16.Tenaw Z, Gari T, Gebretsadik A. Contraceptive use among reproductive-age females with disabilities in central Sidama National Regional State, Ethiopia: a multilevel analysis. PeerJ. 2023;11:e15354. doi: 10.7717/peerj.15354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Barrett Geraldine S, Sarah C. Wellings Kaye. Conceptualisation, development, and evaluation of a measure of unplanned pregnancy. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(5):426–33. doi: 10.1136/jech.2003.014787. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Iyun Victoria B, Kirsty, Phillips Tamsin K, Le Stanzi R, McIntyre, James A, Zerbe, Allison et al. Prevalence and determinants of unplanned pregnancy in HIV-positive and HIV-negative pregnant women in Cape Town, South Africa: a cross-sectional study. BMJ open. 2018;8(4). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 19.Mohammed F, Musa A, Amano A. Prevalence and determinants of unintended pregnancy among pregnant woman attending ANC at Gelemso General Hospital, Oromiya Region, East Ethiopia: a facility based cross-sectional study. BMC Womens Health. 2016;16(1):1–7. doi: 10.1186/s12905-016-0335-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Cleland J, Bernstein S, Ezeh A, Faundes A, Glasier A, Innis J. Family planning: the unfinished agenda. The lancet. 2006;368(9549):1810–27. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69480-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Horner-Johnson W, Dissanayake M, Wu JP, Caughey AB, Darney BG. Pregnancy intendedness by maternal disability status and type in the United States. Perspect Sex reproductive health. 2020;52(1):31–8. doi: 10.1363/psrh.12130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Iezzoni LI, Wint AJ, Smeltzer SC, Ecker JL. How did that happen?” Public responses to women with mobility disability during pregnancy. Disabil health J. 2015;8(3):380–7. doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2015.02.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Nosek MA, Howland C, Rintala DH, Young ME, Chanpong GF. National study of women with physical disabilities. Sex Disabil. 2001;19(1):5–40. doi: 10.1023/A:1010716820677. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Ameyaw EK, Budu E, Sambah F, Baatiema L, Appiah F, Seidu A-A, et al. Prevalence and determinants of unintended pregnancy in sub-saharan Africa: a multi-country analysis of demographic and health surveys. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(8):1–16. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220970. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Muanda MF, Ndongo GP, Messina LJ, Bertrand JT. Barriers to modern contraceptive use in rural areas in DRC. Cult Health Sex. 2017;19(9):1011–23. doi: 10.1080/13691058.2017.1286690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Petersen Williams P, Jordaan E, Mathews C, Lombard C, Parry CD. Alcohol and other drug use during pregnancy among women attending midwife obstetric units in the Cape Metropole, South Africa. Adv Prev Med. 2014;4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 27.Bellis M, Morleo M, Tocque K, Dedman D, Phillips-Howard P, Perkins C, et al. Contributions of alcohol use to teenage pregnancy: an initial examination of geographical and evidence based associations. UK: Liverpool John Moores University; 2009. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Phillips-Howard PH, Bellis MA, Briant LB, Jones H, Downing J, Kelly IE, et al. Wellbeing, alcohol use and sexual activity in young teenagers: findings from a cross-sectional survey in school children in North West England. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2010;5(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/1747-597X-5-27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
All data supporting this information is included in the main document.