Abortion Incidence among Young Women in Urban Slums and Non-Slums in Kinshasa, DR Congo
Abstract
:1. Background
2. Methodology
2.1. Sampling and Data Collection
2.2. Measures
2.3. Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Sociodemographic Characteristics of Respondents and Confidants
3.2. Sociodemographic and Economic Characteristics of Respondents Who Reported an Abortion and Shared It with a Confidant, According to Type of Abortion
3.3. Incidence of Induced Abortion among Respondents Aged 15–29 and Their Confidants
3.4. Characteristics of Abortions Achieved by Respondents and Their Confidants
3.5. Characteristics Related to the Safety of the Last Abortion among Respondents and Their Confidants
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bearak, J.; Popinchalk, A.; Ganatra, B.; Moller, A.-B.; Tunçalp, Ö.; Beavin, C.; Kwok, L.; Alkema, L. 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, e1152–e1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Say, L.; Chou, D.; Gemmill, A.; Tunçalp, Ö.; Moller, A.-B.; Daniels, J.; Gülmezoglu, A.M.; Temmerman, M.; Alkema, L. Global causes of maternal death: A WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob. Health 2014, 2, e323–e333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bell, S.O.; Shankar, M.; Moreau, C. Global epidemiology of induced abortion. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Global Public Health; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Shoso, D.K.; Tshefu, A.K.; Delvaux, T.; Coppieters, Y. Extent of induced abortions and occurrence of complications in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo. BMC Reprod. Health 2019, 16, e0184389. [Google Scholar]
- Safe Engage. Policy Change for Women’s Rights: A Case Study of the Domestication of the Maputo Protocol in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Population Reference Bureau. 2021. Available online: https://www.prb.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/safe-engage-case-study-maputo.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2024).
- Glover, A.L.; Kayembe, P.K.; Kaba, D.; Babakazo, P. Assessing readiness to provide comprehensive abortion care in the Democratic Republic of the Congo after passage of the Maputo protocol. Int. Perspect. Sex Reprod. Health 2020, 46 (Suppl. S1), 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Paluku, L.J.; Mabuza, L.H.; Maduna, P.M.; Ndimande, J.V. Knowledge and attitude of schoolgirls about illegal abortions in Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo. Afr. J. Prim. Health Care Fam. Med. 2010, 2, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burtscher, D.; Schulte-Hillen, C.; Saint-Sauveur, J.F.; De Plecker, E.; Nair, M.; Arsenijević, J. “Better dead than being mocked”: An anthropological study on perceptions and attitudes towards unwanted pregnancy and abortion in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Sex. Reprod. Health Matters 2020, 28, 1852644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- ACHPR. General Comment No. 2 on Article 14.1 (a), (b), (c) and (f) and Article 14. 2 (a) and (c) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa; ACHPR: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Cleland, J.; Bernstein, S.; Ezeh, A.; Faundes, A.; Glasier, A.; Innis, J. Family planning: The unfinished agenda. Lancet 2006, 368, 1810–1827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- White, M.J.; Lindstrom, D.P. Handbook of Population; Internal migration; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 311–346. [Google Scholar]
- Ochako, R.; Izugbara, C.; Okal, J.; Askew, I.; Temmerman, M. Contraceptive method choice among women in slum and non-slum communities in Nairobi, Kenya. BMC Womens Health 2016, 16, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fotso, J.C.; Izugbara, C.; Saliku, T.; Ochako, R. Unintended pregnancy and subsequent use of modern contraceptive among slum and non-slum women in Nairobi, Kenya. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014, 14, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muhoza, D.N.; Ruhara, C.M. Closing the Poor-Rich Gap in Contraceptive Use in Rwanda: Understanding the Underlying Mechanisms. Int. Perspect. Sex Reprod. Health 2019, 45, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akilimali, P.; Moreau, C.; Byrne, M.; Kayembe, D.; Larson, E.; Bell, S.O. Estimating induced abortion incidence and the use of non-recommended abortion methods and sources in two provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa and Kongo Central) in 2021: Results from population-based, cross-sectional surveys of reproductive-aged women. Sex. Reprod. Health Matters 2023, 31, 2207279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Idele, P.; Gillespie, A.; Porth, T.; Suzuki, C.; Mahy, M.; Kasedde, S.; Luo, C. Epidemiology of HIV and AIDS Among Adolescents: Current Status, Inequities, and Data Gaps. J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. 2014, 66, S144–S153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chawla, N.; Sarkar, S. Defining “High-risk Sexual Behavior” in the Context of Substance Use. J. Psychosex. Health 2019, 1, 26–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Performance Monitoring for Action (PMA). Performance Monitoring for Action (PMA). 2021. Available online: https://www.pmadata.org/ (accessed on 1 August 2023).
- UN-Habitat. Chapter 1: Development Context and the Millennium Agenda. In The Challenge of Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements 2003; Revised and Updated Version; UN-Habitat: Nairobi, Kenya, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization. WHO Abortion Care Guidelines: Chapter 3: Recommendations and Best Practice Statements across the Continuum of Abortion Care—Self-Management Recommendation 50: Self-Management of Medical Abortion in Whole or in Part at Gestational Ages <12 Weeks (3.6.2); World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022; Available online: https://srhr.org/abortioncare/chapter-3/service-delivery-options-and-self-management-approaches-3-6/self-management-recommendation-50-self-management-of-medical-abortion-in-whole-or-in-part-at-gestational-ages-12-weeks-3-6-2/ (accessed on 21 April 2022).
- Sully, E.; Giorgio, M.; Anjur-Dietrich, S. Estimating abortion incidence using the network scale-up method. Demogr Res. 2020, 43, 1651–1684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, S.; Bloomberg, H.; Shankar, M.; Omoluabi, E. Methodological Advances in Survey-Based Abortion Estimation: Promising Findings from Nigeria, India, and Cote d’Ivoire. In Proceedings of the Population Association of America Annual Meeting, Austin, TX, USA, 18–20 April 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Behera, D.; Bharat, S.; Gawd, N.C. Induced abortion practices in an urban indian slum: Exploring reasons, pathways and experiences. J. Fam. Reprod. Health 2015, 9, 129–135. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization. Unmet Need for Family Planning. Available online: https://www.who.int/data/gho/indicator-metadata-registry/imr-details/3414 (accessed on 9 October 2023).
- Agarwal, S.; Sangar, K. Need for Dedicated Focus on Urban Health within National Rural Health Mission. Indian J. Public Health 2005, 49, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Gupta, M.; Thakur, J.S.; Kumar, R. Reproductive and Child Health Inequities in Chandigarh Union Territory of India. J. Urban Health Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med. 2008, 85, 291–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, M.; Jeong, J.; Gu, M.; Jung, S.; Kim, H.; Bak, J. Support Measures for Unwed Mothers during Pregnancy and after Childbirth; Report No. 14; Korea Women’s Development Institute: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2018; 366p, Available online: https://www.kwdi.re.kr/inc/download.do?ut=A&upIdx=122818&no=1 (accessed on 31 October 2018).
- Fusco, C.L.B. Unsafe abortion: A serious public health issue in a poverty stricken population. Reprod. Clim. 2013, 2, 2–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guillaume, A.; Desgrées, A. Limitation des naissances parmi les femmes d’Abidjan, en Côte d’ Ivoire: Contraception, avortement ou les deux? Perspect. Int. Sur Le Plan. Fam. 2002, 4–11. [Google Scholar]
- Ganatra, B.; Gerdts, C.; Rossier, C.; Johnson, B.R.; Tunçalp, O.; Assifi, A.; Sedgh, G.; Singh, S.; Bankole, A.; Popinchalk, A.; et al. Global, regional, and subregional classification of abortions by safety, 2010–2014: Estimates from a Bayesian hierarchical model. Lancet 2017, 390, 2372–2381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bankole, A.; Remez, L.; Owolabi, O.; Philbin, J.; Williams, P. De L’avortement non Sécurisé en Afrique Subsaharienne: Des Progrès Lents Mais Constants. 2020. Available online: https://www.guttmacher.org/fr/report/from-unsafe-to-safe-abortion-in-subsaharan-africa (accessed on 21 April 2024).
- Aké-Tano, S.O.P.; Kpebo, D.O.; Konan, Y.E.; Tetchi, E.O.; Sable, S.P.; Ekou, F.K.; Attoh, T.H.; Aka, L.N.; Diarassouba, B.; Dagnan, N.S. Pratiques d’avortement chez des lycéennes à Yamoussoukro, Cote d’Ivoire. Santé Publique 2017, 29, 711–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Non-Slum (n = 327) | Slum (n = 1070) | Overall (n = 1397) | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|
% | % | % | ||
Age Group (years) | 0.886 | |||
15–19 | 37.6 | 36.8 | 37.0 | |
20–29 | 62.4 | 63.2 | 63.0 | |
Education | <0.001 | |||
None/primary | 0.1 | 4.7 | 3.6 | |
Secondary | 72.0 | 76.8 | 75.6 | |
Tertiary | 27.9 | 18.5 | 20.9 | |
Marital Status | <0.001 | |||
Not married | 87.4 | 75.7 | 78.7 | |
Married/in cohabitation | 12.6 | 24.3 | 21.3 | |
Socioeconomic Status | <0.001 | |||
Low | 8.9 | 39.4 | 31.6 | |
Middle | 36.5 | 31.4 | 32.7 | |
High | 54.6 | 29.2 | 35.7 | |
Parity | <0.001 | |||
0 | 74.8 | 61.8 | 65.1 | |
≥1 child | 25.2 | 38.2 | 34.9 | |
Recent Contraceptive Use | 0.197 | |||
No | 63.4 | 58.0 | 59.4 | |
Yes | 36.6 | 42.0 | 40.6 | |
Recent Use of LARCs | <0.001 | |||
No | 97.7 | 92.1 | 93.6 | |
Yes | 2.3 | 7.9 | 6.4 | |
Use of Modern Contraceptive Methods | 0.183 | |||
No | 77.4 | 72.7 | 73.9 | |
Yes | 22.6 | 27.3 | 26.1 | |
Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Respondent reported having a close female friend | 0.359 | |||
0 Confidant | 38.9 | 31.7 | 33.6 | |
≥1 Confidant | 61.1 | 68.3 | 66.4 | |
Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Characteristics | Respondents | Confidants Adjusted | Confidants Fully Adjusted ** | p | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | % | N | % | N | % | ||
Age Group (years) | |||||||
15–19 | 516 | 37.0 | 294 | 33.5 | 480 | 34.8 | <0.0001 |
20–29 | 881 | 63.0 | 457 | 52.2 | 792 | 55.9 | |
30–39 | 100 | 11.5 | 100 | 7.5 | |||
40–49 | 25 | 2.7 | 25 | 1.8 | |||
Total | 1397 | 100.0 | 876 | 100.0 | 1397 | 100.0 | |
Education | |||||||
None/primary | 56 | 3.6 | 31 | 3.3 | 55 | 3.6 | 0.192 |
Secondary | 1053 | 75.6 | 633 | 72.0 | 1030 | 74.3 | |
Tertiary | 288 | 20.9 | 221 | 24.7 | 312 | 22.2 | |
Total | 1397 | 100.0 | 885 | 100.0 | 1397 | 100.0 | |
Marital Status | |||||||
Not married | 1088 | 78.7 | 661 | 75.1 | 1038 | 74.9 | 0.051 |
Married/in cohabitation | 309 | 21.3 | 228 | 24.9 | 359 | 25.1 | |
Total | 1397 | 100.0 | 889 | 100.0 | 1397 | 100.0 | |
Socioeconomic status | |||||||
Low | 487 | 31.6 | 487 | 31.6 | |||
Middle | 464 | 32.7 | 464 | 32.7 | |||
High | 446 | 35.7 | 446 | 35.7 | |||
Total | 1397 | 100.0 | 1397 | 100.0 | |||
Residence | |||||||
Non-slum | 327 | 30.1 | 327 | 30.1 | 0.999 | ||
Slum | 1070 | 69.9 | 1070 | 69.9 | |||
Total | 1397 | 100.0 | 1397 | 100.0 | |||
Parity | |||||||
0 | 898 | 65.1 | 572 | 64.8 | 886 | 63.9 | 0.855 |
≥1 child | 499 | 34.9 | 317 | 35.2 | 511 | 36.1 | |
Total | 1397 | 100.0 | 889 | 100.0 | 1397 | 100.0 | |
Recent Contraceptive Use | |||||||
No | 849 | 59.4 | 499 | 55.2 | 820 | 57.7 | 0.082 |
Yes | 548 | 40.6 | 391 | 44.8 | 577 | 42.3 | |
Total | 1397 | 100.0 | 890 | 100.0 | 1397 | 100.0 | |
Recent Use of LARCs | |||||||
No | 1319 | 93.6 | 817 | 91.0 | 1292 | 92.0 | 0.031 |
Yes | 78 | 6.4 | 73 | 9.0 | 105 | 8.0 | |
Total | 1397 | 100.0 | 890 | 100.0 | 1397 | 100.0 |
0 Confidant | ≥1 Confidant | All Respondents | p Value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Characteristics | * N | % | N | % | N | % | |
Age Group (years) | |||||||
15–19 | 183 | 37.6 | 333 | 36.7 | 516 | 37.0 | 0.623 |
20–29 | 324 | 62.4 | 557 | 63.3 | 881 | 63.0 | |
Education | |||||||
None/primary | 21 | 3.2 | 35 | 3.6 | 56 | 3.6 | 0.177 |
Secondary | 395 | 79.4 | 658 | 73.6 | 1053 | 75.6 | |
Tertiary | 91 | 17.4 | 197 | 22.7 | 288 | 20.9 | |
Marital Status | |||||||
Not married | 376 | 74.4 | 712 | 80.8 | 1088 | 78.7 | 0.011 |
Married/in cohabitation | 131 | 25.6 | 178 | 19.2 | 309 | 21.3 | |
Socioeconomic status | |||||||
Low | 180 | 34.1 | 307 | 30.3 | 487 | 31.6 | 0.055 |
Middle | 184 | 35.0 | 280 | 31.5 | 464 | 32.7 | |
High | 143 | 30.9 | 303 | 38.1 | 446 | 35.7 | |
Residence | |||||||
Non-slum | 98 | 26.4 | 229 | 32.0 | 327 | 30.1 | 0.007 |
Slum | 409 | 73.6 | 661 | 68.0 | 1070 | 69.9 | |
Parity | |||||||
0 | 313 | 61.9 | 585 | 66.7 | 898 | 65.1 | 0.127 |
≥1 child | 194 | 38.1 | 304 | 33.3 | 498 | 34.9 | |
Recent Contraceptive Use | |||||||
No | 321 | 62.8 | 528 | 57.6 | 849 | 59.4 | 0.142 |
Yes | 186 | 37.2 | 362 | 42.4 | 548 | 40.6 | |
Recent Use of LARCs | |||||||
No | 475 | 94.0 | 844 | 93.4 | 1319 | 93.6 | 0.371 |
Yes | 32 | 6.0 | 46 | 6.6 | 78 | 6.4 | |
Use of Modern Contraceptive Methods | |||||||
No | 383 | 75.2 | 654 | 73.2 | 1037 | 73.9 | 0.396 |
Yes | 124 | 24.8 | 236 | 26.8 | 360 | 26.1 | |
History of Abortions | |||||||
No | 414 | 97.9 | 829 | 97.3 | 1243 | 97.5 | 0.081 |
Yes | 7 | 2.1 | 29 | 2.7 | 36 | 2.5 | |
Total | 507 | 100.0 | 890 | 100.0 | 1397 | 100.0 |
Ending Pregnancy | Period Regulation | Combined | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
% | N | % | N | % | N | ||
Age | |||||||
15–19 | 72.9 | 12 | 100.0 | 1 | 73.5 | 13 | |
20–29 | 53.3 | 80 | 57.9 | 10 | 49.3 | 90 | |
Education | |||||||
Never | 100.0 | 1 | 69.2 | 8 | 100.0 | 9 | |
Primary | 52.5 | 68 | 69.2 | 6 | 53.6 | 74 | |
Secondary/higher | 65.5 | 23 | 46.5 | 5 | 49.1 | 28 | |
Marital Status | |||||||
Currently married/cohabiting | 68.6 | 62 | 54.9 | 9 | 62.1 | 69 | |
Not married | 32.8 | 30 | 66.3 | 5 | 34.2 | 34 | |
Wealth Tertile | |||||||
Poorest | 55.9 | 39 | 18.7 | 5 | 50.8 | 44 | |
Middle wealth | 55.9 | 29 | 18.7 | 5 | 50.8 | 34 | |
Wealthiest | 51.1 | 24 | 73.0 | 4 | 54.9 | 28 | |
Slum | |||||||
Non-slum | 49.8 | 22 | 0.0 | 4 | 42.1 | 26 | |
Slum | 58.7 | 70 | 85.7 | 10 | 56.8 | 80 | |
Total | 56.3 | 92 | 59.0 | 14 | 52.6 | 106 |
Respondent | Partially Adjusted Confidant ** | Adjusted Confidant *** | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Characteristic | Rate | 95% CI | Rate | 95% CI | Rate | 95% CI | ||||
Age Group (years) | ||||||||||
15–19 | 21.1 | 10.9 | 40.8 | 84.8 | 48.1 | 121.4 | 139.9 | 79.4 | 200.3 | |
20–29 | 27.2 | 18.3 | 40.5 | 85.4 | 64.1 | 106.8 | 141.0 | 105.7 | 176.2 | |
Education Level | ||||||||||
None | 16.9 | 49.5 | 129.0 | 27.9 | 230.2 | 212.9 | 46.0 | 379.8 | ||
Primary | 20.6 | 12.1 | 29.1 | 78.6 | 58.0 | 99.3 | 129.8 | 95.7 | 163.9 | |
Secondary/tertiary | 74.8 | 33.1 | 116.5 | 123.4 | 54.6 | 192.2 | ||||
Marital Status | ||||||||||
Not married | 24.6 | 13.5 | 35.7 | 94.2 | 69.8 | 118.7 | 155.5 | 115.1 | 195.8 | |
Married/in cohabitation | 23.6 | 6.1 | 41.0 | 36.5 | 20.7 | 52.3 | 60.2 | 34.1 | 86.3 | |
Socioeconomic Status | ||||||||||
Low | 36.6 | 14.7 | 58.5 | |||||||
Middle | 29.2 | 13.8 | 44.7 | |||||||
High | 9.4 | 1.2 | 17.5 | |||||||
Residence | ||||||||||
Non-slum | 13.0 | 0.9 | 25.1 | |||||||
Slum | 29.2 | 19.4 | 39.0 | |||||||
Parity | ||||||||||
0 | 24.1 | 11.6 | 36.6 | 76.6 | 50.0 | 103.2 | 126.5 | 82.6 | 170.4 | |
≥1 child | 24.9 | 10.6 | 39.3 | 85.0 | 55.5 | 114.6 | 140.3 | 91.5 | 189.0 | |
Total | 24.4 | 15.8 | 32.9 | 79.7 | 60.3 | 99.2 | 131.5 | 99.4 | 163.6 |
Respondent | Friends Overall | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
% | N | % | N | ||
All methods used (multiple select) | |||||
Surgery | 34.9 | 56 | 43.9 | 100 | |
Mifepristone/misoprostol pills | 28.0 | 51 | 25.3 | 56 | |
Other pills (identified) | 15.3 | 33 | 16.4 | 52 | |
Unknown pill type | 4.7 | 10 | 4.7 | 12 | |
Injection | 23.2 | 46 | 14.0 | 38 | |
Traditional/other methods | 8.5 | 15 | 15.1 | 33 | |
Do not know/No response | 1.9 | 4 | 5.6 | 12 | |
All sources used (multiple select) | |||||
Public facility | 12.5 | 23 | 13.3 | 32 | |
Private facility | 44.7 | 81 | 62.4 | 145 | |
Pharmacy | 35.9 | 66 | 30.3 | 77 | |
Other non-clinical | 10.4 | 20 | 12.0 | 26 | |
Do not know/No response | 0.3 | 1 | 1.6 | 5 |
Overall | Last 3 Years | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Categories | Respondents | Confidants Adjusted ** | Respondents | Confidants Adjusted * | |||||
% | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | ||
Current WHO Safety Measures ** | |||||||||
Safe (recommended methods and sources) | 38.1 | 65 | 41.6 | 90 | 31.6 | 34 | 52.5 | 26 | |
Less safe (one criterion met) | 41.4 | 77 | 40.3 | 92 | 44.1 | 49 | 34.9 | 17 | |
Unsafe (non-recommended methods and sources) | 20.6 | 42 | 18.1 | 50 | 24.3 | 29 | 12.6 | 10 | |
With New Self-Managed MA Reflected *** | |||||||||
Safe (recommended methods and sources) | 57.2 | 99 | 60.7 | 132 | 51.8 | 55 | 64.5 | 31 | |
Less safe (one criterion met) | 22.2 | 43 | 21.2 | 50 | 23.9 | 28 | 22.9 | 12 | |
Unsafe (non-recommended methods and sources) | 20.6 | 42 | 18.1 | 50 | 24.3 | 29 | 12.6 | 10 | |
Total | 100 | 184 | 100 | 232 | 100 | 112 | 100 | 53 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nkombondo, G.B.; Kabasubabo, F.K.; Akilimali, P.Z. Abortion Incidence among Young Women in Urban Slums and Non-Slums in Kinshasa, DR Congo. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 1021. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21081021
Nkombondo GB, Kabasubabo FK, Akilimali PZ. Abortion Incidence among Young Women in Urban Slums and Non-Slums in Kinshasa, DR Congo. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2024; 21(8):1021. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21081021
Chicago/Turabian StyleNkombondo, Glory B., Francis K. Kabasubabo, and Pierre Z. Akilimali. 2024. "Abortion Incidence among Young Women in Urban Slums and Non-Slums in Kinshasa, DR Congo" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 21, no. 8: 1021. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21081021