ArticlePloS one2022
Women's decisions regarding family planning use and its determinants in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Women's family planning status in Ethiopia: A geo-additive modeling approach.Global epidemiology · 2026Article
- Decisions and choices about fertility and family planning: Perspectives from husbands and wives in Sudan.PloS one · 2026Article
- Determinant factors in the use of modern contraception in urban and rural areas in Western Indonesia.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Women's decision-making power regarding family planning use and associated factors in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.SAGE open medicine · 2023Review
- A Systematic Review of Determinants Influencing Family Planning and Contraceptive Use.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow use of contraceptives has many consequences. Despite this effect, less emphasis is given to women's decision-making on family planning use in Ethiopia. Although there are studies conducted in different parts of the country on women's decision-making regarding family planning use, there are inconsistent findings and a lack of national representative data. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the pooled prevalence of women's decision-making regarding family planning use and its determinants in Ethiopia.
methodsPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be followed to develop the review protocol. All observational studies will be retrieved using Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms or keywords from the online databases PubMed, CINAHL, Google Scholar, African Journal online, and gray literature. The quality of the studies will be critically assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Heterogeneity among studies will be examined using I-squared statistics. Funnel plots and Egger's test will be used to examine publication bias. The meta-analysis will be performed using STATA version 14 software. Statistical significance will be determined at 95% CI. DISCUSSION: Improving women's autonomy in decision-making on reproductive health services, including contraceptive use, has a substantial advantage. There are studies on women's decision-making in family planning use; however, there are inconsistent findings. Therefore, this review protocol aims to determine the pooled prevalence of women's decision-making regarding family planning use and its determinants in Ethiopia. The findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis will help inform policy makers to develop appropriate interventions to improve women's decision making regarding family planning use.
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.