Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36962234›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2022

Change in childbearing intention, use of contraception, unwanted pregnancies, and related adverse events during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from a panel study in rural Burkina Faso.

Thomas Druetz, Sarah Cooper, Frank Bicaba, Alice Bila, Martine Shareck, David-Martin Milot, Cheick Tiendrebeogo, Abel Bicaba

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 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
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 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Thomas DruetzDépartement de médecine sociale et préventive, École de santé publique, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9234-4286
Sarah CooperDépartement de médecine sociale et préventive, École de santé publique, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4605-6643
Frank BicabaSociété d'Études et de Recherches en Santé Publique, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Alice BilaSociété d'Études et de Recherches en Santé Publique, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Martine ShareckDépartement des sciences de la santé communautaire, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9162-3374
David-Martin MilotDépartement des sciences de la santé communautaire, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5346-7232
Cheick TiendrebeogoDépartement de médecine sociale et préventive, École de santé publique, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9848-3121
Abel BicabaSociété d'Études et de Recherches en Santé Publique, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Institut de Recherche en Sciences de la Santé · BFUniversité de Montréal · CAUniversité de Sherbrooke · CATulane University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence on how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected women's reproductive health remains scarce, particularly for low- and middle-income countries. Deleterious indirect effects seem likely, particularly on access to contraception and risk of unwanted pregnancies, but rigorous evaluations using quasi-experimental designs are lacking. Taking a diachronic perspective, we aimed to investigate the effects of the pandemic on four indicators of women's reproductive health: history of recent adverse events during pregnancy (past), use of contraception and unwanted pregnancies (present), and childbearing intentions (future). This study was conducted in four rural health districts of Burkina Faso: Banfora, Leo, Sindou and Tenado. Two rounds of household surveys (before and during the pandemic) were conducted in a panel of 696 households using standardized questionnaires. The households were selected using a stratified two-stage random sampling method. All women aged 15-49 years living in the household were eligible for the study. The same households were visited twice, in February 2020 and February 2021. The effects were estimated by fitting hierarchical regression models with fixed effects or random intercepts at the individual level. A total of 814 and 597 women reported being sexually active before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, respectively. The odds of not wanting (any more) children were two times higher during the pandemic than before (2.0, 95% CI [1.32-3.04]). Among those with childbearing intention, the average desired delay until the next pregnancy increased from 28.7 to 32.8 months. When comparing 2021 versus 2020, there was an increase in the adjusted odds ratio of contraception use (1.23, 95% CI [1.08-1.40]), unwanted pregnancies (2.07, 95% CI [1.01-4.25]), and self-reported history of miscarriages, abortions, or stillbirths in the previous 12 months (2.4, 95% CI [1.04-5.43]). Our findings in rural Burkina Faso do not support the predicted detrimental effects of COVID-19 on the use of family planning services in LMICs, but confirm that it negatively affects pregnancy intentions. Use of contraception increased significantly among women in the panel, but arguably not enough to avoid an increase in unwanted pregnancies.

Identifiers

PMID36962234
PMCPMC10021617
OpenAlexW4293190889

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read32
identifiers read7
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.