Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36526989›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

Prevalence and determinants of contraceptive method use among Bangladeshi women of reproductive age: a multilevel multinomial analysis.

Satyajit Kundu, Subarna Kundu, Md Ashfikur Rahman, Humayun Kabir, Md Hasan Al Banna, Saurav Basu, Hasan Mahmud Reza, Ahmed Hossain

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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
  20. 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 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Satyajit KunduGlobal Health Institute, North South University, Dhaka, 1229, Bangladesh. satyajitnfs@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-9610-1479
Subarna KunduStatistics Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna, 9208, Bangladesh.
Md Ashfikur RahmanDevelopment Studies Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna, 9208, Bangladesh.ORCID 0000-0002-5517-8557
Humayun KabirDepartment of Public Health, North South University, Dhaka, 1229, Bangladesh.ORCID 0000-0002-3278-6584
Md Hasan Al BannaDepartment of Food Microbiology, Faculty of Nutrition and Food Science, Patuakhali Science and Technology University, Patuakhali, 8602, Bangladesh.ORCID 0000-0002-2164-3414
Saurav BasuIndian Institute of Public Health, New Delhi, 122002, India.ORCID 0000-0003-1336-8720
Hasan Mahmud RezaDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, North South University, Dhaka, 1229, Bangladesh.ORCID 0000-0003-3287-942X
Ahmed HossainCollege of Health Sciences, University of Sharjah, 27272, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.ORCID 0000-0003-4575-1273
Khulna University · BDNorth South University · BDIndian Institute of Public Health Gandhinagar · INPatuakhali Science and Technology University · BDUniversity of Sharjah · AE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMuch scholarly debate has centered on Bangladesh's family planning program (FPP) in lowering the country's fertility rate. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of using modern and traditional contraceptive methods and to determine the factors that explain the contraceptive methods use.

methodsThe study used data from the 2017-18 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS), which included 11,452 (weighted) women aged 15-49 years in the analysis. Multilevel multinomial logistic regression was used to identify the factors associated with the contraceptive method use.

resultsThe prevalence of using modern contraceptive methods was 72.16%, while 14.58% of women used traditional methods in Bangladesh. In comparison to women in the 15-24 years age group, older women (35-49 years) were more unwilling to use modern contraceptive methods (RRR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.21-0.37). Women who had at least a living child were more likely to use both traditional and modern contraceptive methods (RRR: 4.37, 95% CI: 3.12-6.11). Similarly, given birth in the previous 5 years influenced women 2.41 times more to use modern method compared to those who had not given birth (RRR: 2.41, 95% CI: 1.65-3.52). Husbands'/partners' decision for using/not using contraception were positively associated with the use of both traditional (RRR: 4.49, 95% CI: 3.04-6.63) and modern methods (RRR: 3.01, 95% CI: 2.15-4.17) rather than using no method. This study suggests rural participants were 21% less likely to utilize modern methods than urban participants (RRR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.67-0.94).

conclusionBangladesh remains a focus for contraceptive use, as it is one of the most populous countries in South Asia. To lower the fertility rate, policymakers may design interventions to improve awareness especially targeting uneducated, and rural reproductive women in Bangladesh. The study also highlights the importance of male partners' decision-making regarding women's contraceptive use.

Indexed as

ContraceptionContraception BehaviorAdolescentAdultAgedBangladeshChildContraceptive AgentsFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHumansMalePrevalenceSocioeconomic FactorsYoung AdultContraceptive AgentsBangladeshBDHSContraception useMultilevel multinomialPrevalence

Identifiers

PMID36526989
PMCPMC9756620
OpenAlexW4312067463

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.