ArticleContraception2021
Are rural Malawian women using their preferred contraceptive method and that of their male partners?
Article in Contraception, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contraceptive Concordance.Studies in family planning · 2025Article
- How Do We Measure Contraceptive Method Preferences? Evidence From a Scoping Review.Studies in family planning · 2025Article
- Contraceptive Use and Discontinuation Among Adolescent Women in 55 Low- and Middle-Income Countries.Demography · 2025Article
- Relationship Dynamics and Young Women's Contraceptive Use.Sexuality research & social policy : journal of NSRC : SR & SP · 2024Article
- Pregnancy and pregnancy intention after experiencing infertility: A longitudinal study of women in Malawi.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- "I know my body and I just can't get pregnant that easily" - Women's use and non-use of the injection to manage fertility.SSM. Qualitative research in health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo measure the agreement between women's current contraceptive use and her preferred method, as well as her partner's preferred method. STUDY
designWe used the fourth wave of survey data (2017-2018) from the Umoyo wa Thanzi (UTHA) cohort study of sexual and reproductive health decision making. The prevalence of concordance between women's current method and her preferred method was calculated (n = 818). Among partnered women, we calculated prevalence of concordance between women's current method and her partner's preferred method (n = 719). We used multivariate logistic regression analyses to assess the relationship between women's characteristics and the outcomes.
resultsDespite high prevalence of modern contraceptive use (74.4%), many women were using methods that did not match their preferences (62.6%) or those of their partners (62.3%). Fifty-five percent of women with preference-use discordance preferred methods that were more effective than theirs. Satisfaction with current family planning choice (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], > 5.5 each) and pregnancy desires (aOR, >1.5 each) were strong predictors of both concordance between women's current method and her preferred method and her partner's preferred method. Women who reported higher sexual frequency in past month had elevated odds of concordance between her current and preferred method (aOR: 1.97 for 9+times in past months) than women who had not had sex.
conclusionsMany Malawian women are not using methods they or their partners prefer. Women desiring pregnancy, women reporting infrequent sex, and women who are not satisfied with their method are likely to prefer a different method than the one they are currently using. IMPLICATIONS: Understanding women's preferences can assist with family planning service provision. Health care providers and researchers should consider the specific methods that women and their partners prefer to use, besides whether they are using any method.
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.