Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32487182›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2020

Socio-demographic and economic inequalities in modern contraception in 11 low- and middle-income countries: an analysis of the PMA2020 surveys.

Cauane Blumenberg, Franciele Hellwig, Fernanda Ewerling, Aluísio J D Barros

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cauane BlumenbergInternational Center for Equity in Health (ICEH), Federal University of Pelotas, Rua Marechal Deodoro 1160, 3o piso, Pelotas, RS, 96020-220, Brazil. cblumenberg@equidade.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4580-3849
Franciele HellwigInternational Center for Equity in Health (ICEH), Federal University of Pelotas, Rua Marechal Deodoro 1160, 3o piso, Pelotas, RS, 96020-220, Brazil.
Fernanda EwerlingInternational Center for Equity in Health (ICEH), Federal University of Pelotas, Rua Marechal Deodoro 1160, 3o piso, Pelotas, RS, 96020-220, Brazil.
Aluísio J D BarrosInternational Center for Equity in Health (ICEH), Federal University of Pelotas, Rua Marechal Deodoro 1160, 3o piso, Pelotas, RS, 96020-220, Brazil.
Universidade Federal de Pelotas · BR

Funding

Gates Foundation OPP1199234Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 101815/Z/13/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContraception is a key component of sustainable development, empowering women, reducing the risk of maternal and child mortality and promoting economic growth. It is part of the Sustainable Development Goals agenda, where the aim is to achieve universal access to sexual and reproductive health. Our objective was to evaluate trends and inequalities in modern contraceptive prevalence, and according to the type of modern contraceptive, in 11 low- and middle-income countries that are partners of the Family Planning 2020 initiative.

methodsAnalyses were performed using 62 Performance Monitoring and Accountability 2020 (PMA2020) surveys from 11 countries. Forty surveys were nationally representative, while 22 had regional coverage. Regional surveys were analyzed separately, totalizing 15 geographies from 11 countries. We described trends on modern contraceptive prevalence, and its subtypes (short- and long-acting reversible contraceptives, and permanent methods), by calculating absolute average annual changes. Absolute inequalities on the prevalence of modern contraceptives were assessed for the most recent survey of each geography using the slope index of inequality, and according to wealth, education and age.

resultsThe overall prevalence of modern contraception increased in most geographies analyzed, reaching a 7.2 percentage points increase per year in Lagos, Nigeria. This increase was mostly influenced by the long-acting reversible contraceptives, which increased in 73% of the geographies. Although the largest share of modern contraception is represented by short-acting reversible contraceptives, these are reducing and giving space for the long-acting methods. The exception was Rajasthan, India, where the permanent methods accounted for 70% of the modern contraception share, and their prevalence was almost 40%. Inequalities were identified in favor of richer, older and better educated women.

conclusionsOut of the 15 geographies analyzed, 11 demonstrated an increase in overall modern contraceptive use - mainly driven by the uptake of long-acting reversible contraception. However, even in the groups with the highest prevalence, modern contraceptive use was at most 60% in most geographies. So, we are far from reaching the desired universal coverage proposed by the Sustainable Development Goals.

Indexed as

Family Planning ServicesSexual BehaviorAdolescentAdultContraceptionContraception BehaviorDeveloping CountriesEducational StatusFemaleHumansIncomeSocioeconomic FactorsYoung AdultContraceptionFamily planningHealth equity

Identifiers

PMID32487182
PMCPMC7268403
OpenAlexW3031043267

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.