ArticleBMJ open2023
Permanent, long-acting and short-acting reversible contraceptive methods use among women in Bangladesh: an analysis of Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey 2017-2018 data.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contraceptive behaviors and media influence among women in Bangladesh: exploring the effects of age and education.Frontiers in global women's health · 2025Pooled it
- Prevalence and factors associated with the use of long-acting reversible and permanent contraceptive methods among women who desire no more children in Bangladesh.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to explore the factors associated with the permanent and long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) method use compared with short-acting reversible contraceptive (SARC) methods among Bangladeshi ever-married women aged 15-49 years.
designCross-sectional study.
settingWe used data from Bangladesh Demographic Health Survey (BDHS) 2017-2018.
participantsA total of 9669 Bangladeshi reproductive-aged women who gave information on contraception use were the study participants. A multilevel multinomial logistic regression model was employed where the SARC method was considered as the base category and the cluster was considered as level-2 factor.
resultsAmong the contraceptive users in Bangladeshi women, about 83.48% used the SARC method, while 11.34%, and 5.18% used permanent and LARC methods, respectively. Compared with SARC, women with no formal education and only primary education who were non-Muslims, and had parity of ≥3 had a higher likelihood of using both permanent and LARC methods. Women from the age group of 25-34 years (adjusted relative risk ratio (aRRR): 7.03, 95% CI: 4.17 to 11.85) and 35-49 years (aRRR: 12.53, 95% CI: 7.27 to 21.58) who were employed (aRRR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.40), had media access (aRRR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.49), gave birth in last 5 years (aRRR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.76), whose contraception decision solely made by their husband (aRRR: 7.03, 95% CI: 5.15 to 9.60) and having high decision-making power (aRRR: 2.12, 95% CI: 1.62 to 2.77) were more likely to use permanent contraceptive methods. We observed that women from households with richer (aRRR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.93) and richest (aRRR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.63) wealth quintiles were less likely to use LARC methods.
conclusionsThis study identified that women with no/less education, non-Muslims, and having parity of ≥3 were more likely to use both permanent and LARC methods than SARC methods. Targeted interventions could be developed and implemented to promote personalised contraceptive 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.