ArticlePloS one2021
The gap in contraceptive knowledge and use between the military and non-military populations of Kinshasa, DRC, 2016-2019.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence, patterns and motives for hormonal contraceptive use among German servicewomen: results from a nationwide survey.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Determinants of the use of contraceptive methods by adolescents in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: results of a cross-sectional survey.BMC women's health · 2022Article
- As long as (I think) my husband agrees…: role of perceived partner approval in contraceptive use among couples living in military camps in Kinshasa, DRC.Reproductive health · 2022Article
- Heterogeneity of Modern Contraceptive Use among Urban Slum and Nonslum Women in Kinshasa, DR Congo: Cross-Sectional Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe objective of this study is to assess change over time in the modern contraceptive prevalence rate (MCPR) and related variables among married women of reproductive age (15-49 years) in the military population in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo, compared to women in the non-military population, based on cross-sectional surveys in 2016 and 2019.
methodsData among women living in military camps were collected as a special study of contraceptive knowledge, use, and exposure to FP messaging, for comparison to women in the non-military population from the annual PMA2020 survey. Both used a two-stage cluster sampling design to randomly select participants. This analysis is limited to women married or in union. Bivariate and multivariate analysis was used to compare the military and non-military populations.
resultsThe socio-demographic profile of women in the military camps differed between 2016 and 2019, which may reflect the more mobile nature of this population. In both populations, knowledge of modern contraceptive methods increased significantly. Similarly, use of a modern contraceptive method also increased significantly in both, though by 2019 women in the military camps were less likely to use modern contraception (24.9%) than their non-military counterparts (29.7%). Multivariate analysis showed no significant difference in the amount of increase in MCPR for the two populations. Among contraceptive users in both populations, the implant was the leading method. Potential effects of FP programming were evident in the military population: exposure to FP messaging increased (in comparison to a decrease among the non-military population). Moreover, women who had lived in the camps for 4+ years had a higher MCPR than those living in the camps for less than four years.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates the feasibility and importance of collecting data in military camps for better understanding contraceptive dynamics among this specialized population.
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.