ArticleAfrican health sciences2022
Current practice of family planning among teachers in public secondary school in Enugu East Senatorial District, Nigeria.
Article in African health sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Editorial I: So, who wins? It is still: NCDs 3; Infections 2.African health sciences · 2022Article
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
Background: The aim of this study is to determine the current practice level of family planning and the associated factors among public secondary school teachers in Enugu East Senatorial District. Method: A cross-sectional study was carried out among public secondary school teachers, aged 18 - 60 years, in Enugu East Senatorial District, using probability proportional to size sampling and systematic random sampling to select 1000 participants. Binary and multiple logistic regression analyses were used to determine association. An odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed to determine the level of significance. Results: The current practice level of family planning is 26.5%. Respondents with bachelor in education were 2 times more likely to be a current user of family planning (AOR=2.39; 95% CI: 1.25-4.55). However, respondents in age group 38 years and above were less likely to be a current user of family planning (AOR=0.64; 95% CI: 0.43-0.95), likewise female respondents (AOR=0.66; 95% CI: 0.44-0.98). Additionally, respondents who mentioned radio (AOR=0.64; 95%CI: 0.44-0.93), social media (AOR=0.73; 95% CI: 0.53-0.99) and healthcare (AOR=0.61; 95%CI: 0.43-0.88) as source of information were less likely to be current user of family planning. Whereas, partner who encouraged the use of family planning (AOR=2.54; 95% CI: 1.71-3.78) span style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-weight:bold">, partner who allow each other to decide on family planning methods (AOR=4.47; 95% CI: 2.67-7.48) and those who had good knowledge of family planning (AOR=1.96; 95% CI: 1.40-2.67) were more likely to be current user of family planning. Conclusion: The level of current practice of family planning is low and a significant number of factors predict the current practice of family planning. A family planning educational workshop among teachers is needed to improve teacher's knowledge on family planning to address the issue of adolescent sexual reproduction as teachers are vessels of knowledge impartation to students.
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.