Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33434205›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

The role of partner influence in contraceptive adoption, discontinuation, and switching in a nationally representative cohort of Ugandan women.

Dana O Sarnak, Shannon N Wood, Linnea A Zimmerman, Celia Karp, Fredrick Makumbi, Simon P S Kibira, Caroline Moreau

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Relationship Dynamics and Young Women's Contraceptive Use.Sexuality research & social policy : journal of NSRC : SR & SP · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  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.

Dana O SarnakDepartment of Population Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3976-4860
Shannon N WoodDepartment of Population Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Linnea A ZimmermanDepartment of Population Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0118-0889
Celia KarpDepartment of Population Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Fredrick MakumbiDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.ORCID 0000-0002-6460-7325
Simon P S KibiraDepartment of Community Health and Behavioural Sciences, School of Public Health, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.ORCID 0000-0002-7385-423X
Caroline MoreauDepartment of Population Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.

Funding

Gates Foundation INV-009639
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding contraceptive use dynamics is critical to addressing unmet need for contraception. Despite evidence that male partners may influence contraceptive decision-making, few studies have prospectively examined the supportive ways that men influence women's contraceptive use and continuation.

objectiveThis study sought to understand the predictive effect of partner influence, defined as partner's fertility intentions and support for contraception, and discussions about avoiding pregnancy prior to contraceptive use, on contraceptive use dynamics (continuation, discontinuation, switching, adoption) over a one-year period.

methodsThis study uses nationally representative longitudinal data of Ugandan women aged 15-49 collected in 2018-2019 (n = 4,288 women baseline; n = 2,755 women one-year follow-up). Two analytic sub-samples of women in union and in need of contraception at baseline were used (n = 618 contraceptive users at baseline for discontinuation/switching analysis; n = 687 contraceptive non-users at baseline for adoption analysis). Primary dependent variables encompassed contraceptive use dynamics (continuation, discontinuation, switching, and adoption); three independent variables assessed partner influence. For each sub-sample, bivariate associations explored differences in sociodemographic and partner influences by contraceptive dynamics. Multinomial regression models were used to examine discontinuation and switching for contraceptive users at baseline; logistic regression identified predictors of contraceptive adoption among non-users at baseline.

resultsAmong users at baseline, 26.3% of women switched methods and 31.5% discontinued contraceptive use by follow-up. Multinomial logistic regression, adjusting for women's characteristics, indicated the relative risk of contraceptive discontinuation doubled when women did not discuss pregnancy avoidance with their partner prior to contraceptive use. Partner influence was not related to method switching. Among non-users at baseline, partner support for future contraceptive use was associated with nearly three-fold increased odds of contraceptive adoption. SIGNIFICANCE: These results highlight the potentially supportive role of male partners in contraceptive adoption. Future research is encouraged to elucidate the complex pathways between couple-based decision-making and contraceptive dynamics through further prospective studies.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultCohort StudiesContraceptionContraception BehaviorContraceptive AgentsContraceptive DevicesFemaleFertilityHumansLongitudinal StudiesMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSpousesUgandaContraceptive Agents

Identifiers

PMID33434205
PMCPMC7802956

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.