ArticleGlobal journal of health science2012
Myths and fallacies about male contraceptive methods: a qualitative study amongst married youth in slums of Karachi, Pakistan.
Article in Global journal of health science, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect modification of socioeconomic status in the association between contraception methods and couple's education: A secondary analysis of PDHS 2017-18.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Socio-sexual norms and young people's sexual health in urban Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan: A qualitative scoping review.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Beliefs and misconceptions about contraception and condom use among adolescents in south-east Nigeria.Reproductive health · 2021Article
- Negotiation of the use of medical contraception: Levers and obstacles within married couples in Benin.PloS one · 2021Article
- Article
- Post-vasectomy depression: a case report and literature review.Mental illness · 2014Article
- Article
- The Sexual Acceptability of Contraception: Reviewing the Literature and Building a New Concept.Journal of sex researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pakistan presently has one of the largest cohorts of young people in its history, with around 36 million people between the ages of 15 and 24 years. One of the main reasons for high population growth in Pakistan is almost stagnant contraceptive prevalence rate of 30% nationally and 17.4% amongst youth. The study was conducted to explore the perceptions regarding myths and fallacies related to male contraceptive methods among married youth aged 18-24 year in Karachi, Pakistan. Qualitative exploratory study design was adopted and a total of eight Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted. Study was conducted in two Union Councils of Korangi Town in the squatter settlement of Karachi, Pakistan from July to September 2010. Thematic analysis was done manually. General, physical, sexual, psychological, socio-cultural and religious were the common categories which lead to myths and fallacies related to condoms use and vasectomy among the married youth. The foremost myth amongst male and female youth was that use of both condoms and vasectomy cause impotence in males. Additionally, condoms were thought to cause infections, backache and headache in males. Some youth of the area think that vasectomy is meant for prisoners only. In conclusion our findings suggest that the potential reasons behind low use of male contraceptive methods among youth of squatter settlement of Karachi were myths and fallacies about male contraceptive methods. There are some important policy implications like counseling of the couple through peers and well trained family planning service providers to address these myths and misconceptions from the minds of youth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.