Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36962421›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2022

"They will say you want to make their home die": A mixed methods study to assess modern family planning use in partnered South Sudanese refugee and host populations in Northern Uganda.

Neha S Singh, Pallavi Prabhakar, Agnes Ssali, Sylvia Namakula, Josephine Namatovu, Rogers Kapiti, Joram Kasiri, Sandra Mounier-Jack

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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 1 institution in 2 countries.

Neha S SinghDepartment of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0057-121X
Pallavi PrabhakarIndependent Evaluation and Research Cell, BRAC Uganda, Kampala, Uganda.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6997-9881
Agnes SsaliDepartment of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Sylvia NamakulaIndependent Consultant, Kampala, Uganda.
Josephine NamatovuIndependent Consultant, Kampala, Uganda.
Rogers KapitiIndependent Consultant, Kampala, Uganda.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5684-6273
Joram KasiriIndependent Consultant, Kampala, Uganda.
Sandra Mounier-JackDepartment of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The unmet need for family planning among conflict-affected populations is high globally, leaving girls and women vulnerable to unintended pregnancies and poor sexual and reproductive health outcomes. Ours is the first known mixed-methods study to assess the use of modern family planning (FP) methods amongst married or partnered South Sudanese refugee and host populations in Northern Uganda and to explore differences between them. We conducted a cross-sectional survey in July 2019 which included 1,533 partnered women of reproductive age (15-49 years) from host and South Sudanese refugee communities in Kiryandongo and Arua. Qualitative data were collected in October 2019-January 2020 via 34 focus group discussions and 129 key informant interviews with refugee and host populations, health workers, community and religious leaders, health workers, local authorities and humanitarian actors. Our study did not find large differences between South Sudanese refugee and host populations in regard to modern FP use, though refugees reported somewhat poorer FP knowledge, accessibility and utilisation compared to Ugandan women. Reported barriers to FP use relate to access, quality of services, health concerns and family/community opposition, all of which emphasise the importance of men's gendered roles in relationships, cultural and religious beliefs and lack of agency for most women to make their own decisions about reproductive health. Sexual and gender-based violence related to FP use was reported among both refugee and host populations. Additional barriers to FP use include lack of privacy at the public health facilities which reduces confidentiality, mistrust of health workers, and stockouts of FP commodities. Facilitating factors for FP use included: free government health services; the presence of well-trained health workers; and NGOs who give support to populations and conduct community outreaches. The findings of this study underscore the importance of developing and implementing tailored sexual and reproductive health information and services, especially for modern FP methods, in partnership with South Sudanese refugee and host populations in Northern Uganda.

Identifiers

PMID36962421
PMCPMC10022387
OpenAlexW4283730544

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read53
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.