Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34034757›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2021

A cross-country qualitative study on contraceptive method mix: contraceptive decisionmaking among youth.

Lynette Ouma, Burcu Bozkurt, Jill Chanley, Christine Power, Ronald Kakonge, Oluwatosin C Adeyemi, Ramya Jawahar Kudekallu, Elizabeth Leahy Madsen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Barriers to modern contraceptive utilization in Ethiopia.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2024
    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
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Lynette OumaInternational Youth Alliance for Family Planning, Washington, DC, USA. louma@iyafp.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8059-8820
Burcu BozkurtInternational Youth Alliance for Family Planning, Washington, DC, USA.
Jill ChanleyPRB, Washington, DC, USA.
Christine PowerPRB, Washington, DC, USA.
Ronald KakongeInternational Youth Alliance for Family Planning, Washington, DC, USA.
Oluwatosin C AdeyemiInternational Youth Alliance for Family Planning, Washington, DC, USA.
Ramya Jawahar KudekalluInternational Youth Alliance for Family Planning, Washington, DC, USA.
Elizabeth Leahy MadsenPRB, Washington, DC, USA.
Health Alliance International · USPopulation Reference Bureau · USUniversity of Lagos · NGUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Grant No: OPP1174406
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundYouth ages 15 to 24, who comprise a large portion of sub-Saharan Africa, face a higher burden of unmet contraceptive need than adults. Despite increased international and national commitments to improving young people's access to contraception, significant barriers impede their access to a full range of methods. To further explore these barriers among youth in Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda, we conducted a qualitative study to capture the challenges that affect contraceptive method decisionmaking and complicate youth access to the full method mix.

methodsTo understand factors that impact young people's contraceptive decisionmaking process across all three countries, we conducted a total of 35 focus group discussions with 171 youth ages 15 to 24 and 130 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders working in youth family planning. Questionnaires aligned with the High Impact Practices in Family Planning's elements of adolescent-friendly contraceptive services. Data were coded with MAXQDA and analyzed using a framework for contraceptive decisionmaking to identify relevant patterns and themes.

resultsIn all three countries, youth reported that condoms are the most commonly sought contraceptive method because they are easiest to access and because youth have limited knowledge of other methods. Youth from diverse settings shared uncertainty and concern about the safety and side effects of many methods other than condoms, complicating their ability to take full advantage of other available methods. While most youth in Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda reported at least moderate confidence in obtaining the information needed to help choose a method, and only a few youth reported that they are completely unable to access contraceptives, other barriers still present a major deterrent for youth, including cost, inconvenient facility hours and long wait times, and stigma from family, community members, and providers.

conclusionsYoung people's ability to fully exercise their method choice remains limited despite availability of services, leading them to take the path of least resistance. Program implementers and policymakers should consider the diverse and often interconnected barriers that youth face in attempting to enjoy the benefits of a full spectrum of contraceptive methods and design multi-level interventions to mitigate such barriers.

Indexed as

ContraceptionContraception BehaviorDecision MakingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth Services AccessibilityAdolescentAdultContraceptive AgentsDelivery of Health CareFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHumansKenyaMaleNigeriaQualitative ResearchContraceptive AgentsContraceptive decisionmakingFamily planningFull range of methodsMethod mixYouth

Identifiers

PMID34034757
PMCPMC8145785
OpenAlexW3164171932

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.