Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35871816›Full record

ArticleLancet (London, England)2022

Measuring contraceptive method mix, prevalence, and demand satisfied by age and marital status in 204 countries and territories, 1970-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

Annie Haakenstad, Olivia Angelino, Caleb M S Irvine, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Kelly Bienhoff, Corinne Bintz, Kate Causey, M Ashworth Dirac, Nancy Fullman, Emmanuela Gakidou and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Lancet (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

93 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The Effect of TISSEELMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026
    Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Annie HaakenstadInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Health Metrics Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Olivia AngelinoInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Caleb M S IrvineInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Zulfiqar A BhuttaCentre for Global Child Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Centre of Excellence in Women and Child Health, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Kelly BienhoffInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Corinne BintzInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Kate CauseyInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
M Ashworth DiracInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Health Metrics Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Swedish Family Medicine, First Hill, Seattle, WA, USA.
Nancy FullmanInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Emmanuela GakidouInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Health Metrics Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Thomas GlucksmanInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Simon I HayInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Health Metrics Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Nathaniel J HenryInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Ira MartopulloInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Ali H MokdadInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Health Metrics Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
John Everett MumfordInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Stephen S LimInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Health Metrics Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Christopher J L MurrayInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Health Metrics Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Rafael LozanoInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Health Metrics Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: rlozano@uw.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeeting the contraceptive needs of women of reproductive age is beneficial for the health of women and children, and the economic and social empowerment of women. Higher rates of contraceptive coverage have been linked to the availability of a more diverse range of contraceptive methods. We present estimates of the contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR), modern contraceptive prevalence rate (mCPR), demand satisfied, and the method of contraception used for both partnered and unpartnered women for 5-year age groups in 204 countries and territories between 1970 and 2019.

methodsWe used 1162 population-based surveys capturing contraceptive use among women between 1970 and 2019, in which women of reproductive age (15-49 years) self-reported their, or their partner's, current use of contraception for family planning purposes. Spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression was used to generate estimates of the CPR, mCPR, demand satisfied, and method mix by age and marital status. We assessed how age-specific mCPR and demand satisfied changed with the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a measure of social and economic development, using the meta-regression Bayesian, regularised, trimmed method from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study.

findingsIn 2019, 162·9 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 155·6-170·2) women had unmet need for contraception, of whom 29·3% (27·9-30·6) resided in sub-Saharan Africa and 27·2% (24·4-30·3) resided in south Asia. Women aged 15-19 years (64·8% [62·9-66·7]) and 20-24 years (71·9% [68·9-74·2]) had the lowest rates of demand satisfied, with 43·2 million (95% UI 39·3-48·0) women aged 15-24 years with unmet need in 2019. The mCPR and demand satisfied among women aged 15-19 years were substantially lower than among women aged 20-49 years at SDI values below 60 (on a 0-100 scale), but began to equalise as SDI increased above 60. Between 1970 and 2019, the global mCPR increased by 20·1 percentage points (95% UI 18·7-21·6). During this time, traditional methods declined as a proportion of all contraceptive methods, whereas the use of implants, injections, female sterilisation, and condoms increased. Method mix differs substantially depending on age and geography, with the share of female sterilisation increasing with age and comprising more than 50% of methods in use in south Asia. In 28 countries, one method was used by more than 50% of users in 2019.

interpretationThe dominance of one contraceptive method in some locations raises the question of whether family planning policies should aim to expand method mix or invest in making existing methods more accessible. Lower rates of demand satisfied among women aged 15-24 years are also concerning because unintended pregnancies before age 25 years can forestall or eliminate education and employment opportunities that lead to social and economic empowerment. Policy makers should strive to tailor family planning programmes to the preferences of the groups with the most need, while maintaining the programmes used by existing users.

fundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Indexed as

ContraceptionGlobal Burden of DiseaseBayes TheoremChildContraceptive AgentsFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHumansMarital StatusPregnancyPrevalenceContraceptive Agents

Identifiers

PMID35871816
PMCPMC9304984

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.