Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32727500›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2020

Unmet family planning needs among female refugees and asylum seekers in Germany - is free access to family planning services enough? Results of a cross-sectional study.

Melisa Guelhan Inci, Nadja Kutschke, Sara Nasser, Sara Alavi, Ingar Abels, Christine Kurmeyer, Jalid Sehouli

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 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Women's Attitudes toward Family Planning in the Postpartum Period and Affecting Factors: Turkiye Sample.Journal of transcultural nursing : official journal of the Transcultural Nursing Society · 2025
    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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Melisa Guelhan InciDepartment of Gynecology, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Nadja KutschkeDepartment of Gynecology, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. nadja.kutschke@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6643-5195
Sara NasserDepartment of Gynecology, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Sara AlaviDepartment of Gynecology, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Ingar AbelsMentoring Competence Center, Campus Charité Mitte, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Christine KurmeyerWomen and equal opportunities officer, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Jalid SehouliDepartment of Gynecology, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAfter the 1968 United Nations International Conference on Human Rights, access to family planning services became a human right. Such a service is of central importance to women's empowerment and is empirically needed to provide adequate healthcare. For registered refugees and asylum seekers in Germany complementary family planning services, including all forms of contraception, are free of charge. Yet, the success of these services remains unclear. The aim of this study is to describe the current reproductive health status of female refugees and to provide an initial overview of their existing unmet family planning and contraception needs.

methodsOver the course of 2 years, from December 2015 to December 2017, a set of 50 female-only discussion groups were conducted in community shelters for registered refugees in Berlin. A total of 410 women between the ages of 14 and 74 participated. A convenience sampling strategy was then applied and a total of 307 semi-structured questionnaires covering 41 items related to demographic data and women's health were distributed to volunteering female participants over the age of 17. The statistical analysis of the questionnaires was performed using SPSS (IBM, PASW, Version 24). P-values less than or equal to 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

resultsOf the 307 participants, the majority were from Syria and Afghanistan (30% respectively). The mean age was 33 years (range: 18-63). On average, each woman had 2.5 births (range: 0-10). Twenty-four women (8%) were pregnant and fifty-four of the women (18%) were trying to become pregnant. The majority of women were classified as "requiring contraception" (n = 195; 63%) of which 183 gave further information on if and how they used family planning methods. The calculated unmet need for family planning in this group was 47%. Of the remaining 53% of the women who used contraception, many utilised "traditional" methods (34% withdrawal method; 8% calendar method) which have a pearl index of 4-18 and can therefore be classified as rather insufficient birth control methods. Intrauterine contraceptive devices were used by 30%.

conclusionOur study revealed that despite the provision of complementary family planning services, there remains unmet family planning and education needs in the female refugee community in Berlin. This study indicates that there is a major access gap to these services. Further research needs to be carried out to evaluate the access gap and clearly identify and implement action plans to address possible causes such as language barriers, lack of childcare and traumatic experiences.

Indexed as

Health Services Needs and DemandAdolescentAdultAgedContraceptionContraception BehaviorCross-Sectional StudiesFamily Planning ServicesFemaleGermanyHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMiddle AgedPregnancyPregnancy, UnplannedRefugeesContraceptive useFamily planningGermanyPregnancy, unplannedRefugee healthWomen

Identifiers

PMID32727500
PMCPMC7389815
OpenAlexW3045661171

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.