ArticleReproductive health2013
Does the use of modern family planning promote healthy timing and spacing of pregnancy in Dar es Salaam?
Article in Reproductive health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decomposing the gap in under-five mortality determinants between the low- and high-risk regions of Nigeria.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTiming, spacing and limiting of pregnancy are key outcomes of family planning (FP) whose role in promoting health of mothers and babies is evidence based. Despite the evidence, recent studies in Tanzania have reported a trend towards child birth in older age, non-adherence to standard inter-pregnancy spacing, and preference of large families in the background of a rising national contraceptive prevalence rate. We explored if the use of modern FP promotes healthy timing and spacing of pregnancy among women seeking antenatal services.
designAnalytical Cross-sectional study
methodsWomen seeking antenatal services at Muhimbili National Hospital, Tanzania (August-October, 2012) were enrolled. We used a semi-structured questionnaire to obtained information from the women. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 19. Outcomes of interest were adherence to timing of first pregnancy and to inter-pregnancy spacing after normal childbirth. Use of modern FP prior to index pregnancy was the independent variable of primary interest. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to obtain odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) as estimates risk and clinical importance respectively. Ethical approval was obtained from the Research and Publications Committee at Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences.
resultsIn total 427 women were interviewed. Ages ranged 15-45 years, mean 29.2 (SD ± 5.1). Among all, 129 (30.2%) were primigravida, 298 (69. 8%) multigravida. Of these 298 women, 51 (17.1%) lost pregnancies preceding the index. Overall, 179 (41.9%) had ever used modern FP, 103 (24.1%) were on modern FP just prior to index pregnancy.Non-adherence to timing was increased for primigravida (AOR = 4.5, 95% CI: 2.1-9.6) and for women older than 29 years (AOR = 7.6 95% CI: 3.8-15.2). Non-adherence to spacing was increased with loss of the immediate past pregnancy (AOR = 2.5; 95% CI: 1.3-4.7). Use of modern FP was neither associated with adherence to timing (AOR = 1.0; 95% CI: 0.5-1.9) nor spacing (AOR = 1.0; 95% CI: 0.6-1.8).
conclusionModern FP does not promote adherence to timing and spacing of pregnancy among women seeking antenatal services at MNH. Past obstetric experience was key to women's decisions on spacing. There is need to promote educational messages on timing and spacing of pregnancy for healthy outcomes.
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.