Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25880987›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2015

Assessing predictors of contraceptive use and demand for family planning services in underserved areas of Punjab province in Pakistan: results of a cross-sectional baseline survey.

Syed Khurram Azmat, Moazzam Ali, Muhammad Ishaque, Ghulam Mustafa, Waqas Hameed, Omar Farooq Khan, Ghazunfer Abbas, Marleen Temmerman, Erik Munroe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Syed Khurram AzmatDepartment of Uro-gynecology, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium. SyedKhurram.Azmat@UGent.be.
Moazzam AliDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. alimoa@who.int.
Muhammad IshaqueResearch, Monitoring & Evaluation Department, Marie Stopes Society, Karachi, Pakistan. ishaque.sheikh@mariestopespk.org.
Ghulam MustafaResearch, Monitoring & Evaluation Department, Marie Stopes Society, Karachi, Pakistan. ghulam.mustafa@mariestopespk.org.
Waqas HameedResearch, Monitoring & Evaluation Department, Marie Stopes Society, Karachi, Pakistan. waqas.hameed@mariestopespk.org.
Omar Farooq KhanResearch, Monitoring & Evaluation Department, Marie Stopes Society, Karachi, Pakistan. dr.omar@mariestopespk.org.
Ghazunfer AbbasResearch, Monitoring & Evaluation Department, Marie Stopes Society, Karachi, Pakistan. ghazanfer.abbas@mariestopespk.org.
Marleen TemmermanDepartment of Uro-gynecology, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium. temmermanm@who.int.
Erik MunroeResearch, Monitoring and Evaluation Department, Marie Stopes International, London, United Kingdom. erik.munroe@mariestopes.org.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough Pakistan was one of the first countries in Asia to launch national family planning programs, current modern contraceptive use stands at only 26% with a method mix skewed toward short-acting and permanent methods. As part of a multiyear operational research study, a baseline survey was conducted to understand the predictors of contraceptive use and demand for family planning services in underserved areas of Punjab province in Pakistan. This paper presents the baseline survey results; the outcomes of the intervention will be presented in a separate paper after the study has been completed.

methodA cross-sectional baseline household survey was conducted with randomly selected 3,998 married women of reproductive age (MWRA) in the Chakwal, Mianwali, and Bhakkar districts of Punjab. The data were analyzed on SPSS 17.0 using simple descriptive and logistic regression.

resultsMost of the women had low socio-economic status and were younger than 30 years of age. Four-fifths of the women consulted private sector health facilities for reproductive health services; proximity, availability of services, and good reputation of the provider were the main predicators for choosing the facilities. Husbands were reported as the key decision maker regarding health-seeking and family planning uptake. Overall, the current contraceptive use ranged from 17% to 21% across the districts: condoms and female sterilization were widely used methods. Woman's age, husband's education, wealth quintiles, spousal communication, location of last delivery, and favorable attitude toward contraception have an association with current contraceptive use. Unmet need for contraception was 40.6%, 36.6%, and 31.9% in Chakwal, Mianwali, and Bhakkar, respectively. Notably, more than one fifth of the women across the districts expressed willingness to use quality, affordable long-term family planning services in the future.

conclusionThe baseline results highlight the need for quality, affordable long-term family planning services close to women's homes. Furthermore, targeted community mobilization and behavior change efforts can lead to increased awareness, acceptability, and use of family planning and birth spacing services.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth Services Needs and DemandAdolescentAdultBirth IntervalsContraceptionContraception BehaviorCross-Sectional StudiesFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMiddle AgedPakistanPregnancySurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID25880987
PMCPMC4383051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.