ArticleContraception and reproductive medicine2021
Sex differences in family planning knowledge, attitudes, and use in Uganda.
Article in Contraception and reproductive medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLiterature is satiated with studies focusing on knowledge, attitude, and practices of family planning (FP) among the female population, conversely, the gaps in sex-disaggregated data on FP continue to exist. This study sought to report sex differences existing in FP knowledge, attitude, and use in Uganda.
methodsThis study uses data from a household survey that covered 16 districts in Uganda. Multi-stage cluster randomized sampling was employed for participant selection. Bivariate analysis for categorical data was conducted. Multilevel logistic regression model was applied to model the effects of socio-demographic characteristics on the use of modern FP methods.
resultsData from 4,352 respondents in the ratios of 70 % females and 30 % of males were analyzed. The mean age was 28.7 SD (8.5) and was not significantly different between males and females. More male respondents had secondary or higher level of education (44 %) than females (36 %). Knowledge of at least one modern FP method was high, but small significant differences were revealed between males (96 %) and females (98 %). Significant knowledge differences were seen in specific FP methods. A higher proportion of females (71 %) than males (67 %) perceived modern FP methods as always available in the community whereas more males (40 %) believed that modern FP methods can result in infertility than females (35 %). There was high self-efficacy about family planning methods use in both males and females. The proportion of married females that reported using or their partner using a modern FP method was 39 % compared to 45 % reported by the married males. Approx. 53 % of the males compared to 37 % of the females that reported condom use also cited STI/HIV prevention as the main reason for condom use suggesting dual protection as a driver for use. Males, young adults, the more educated, and those in marriage or active relationships were more likely to use modern FP methods.
conclusionsOur study found significant sex differences in knowledge, attitudes, and use of FP methods. The young adults and more educated respondents were more likely to use FP methods. The high self-efficacy observed for both males and females is a signal that both sexes can use FP methods. Project strategies and implementation should take into consideration the existing differences by sex and devise sex-tailored approaches to improve FP knowledge, attitudes, and use in this population. There was increased reporting of condom use as an FP and STI/HIV prevention method, follow-up studies aiming at succinctly measuring dual protection, and its drivers for both sex should be done.
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.