ArticleCadernos de saude publica2023
[Contraceptive mix and factors associated with the type of method used by Brazilian women: a population-based cross-sectional study].
Article in Cadernos de saude publica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Women's knowledge about Intrauterine Device and user satisfaction in Brazil: a systematic review.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2025Pooled it
- Maternity in adolescence in Brazil: high fertility rates and stark inequalities across municipalities and regions.Cadernos de saude publica · 2026Article
- Inequalities in the health care system utilization for intrauterine device insertion.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2026Article
- Prevalence of vasectomy and tubal ligation: time series analysis Brazil, 2006-2019.Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil · 2025Article
- Women's empowerment and contraceptive use in ever-married adult women: Analysis of a population-based survey in Peru.Contraception: X · 2024Article
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
This study aims to describe the contraceptive mix and analyze the factors associated with the type of contraceptive used by Brazilian women of reproductive age. This is a cross-sectional, population-based study with data from 19,962 women aged 15 to 49 years. The outcomes were use and type of contraceptive, classified as: short-acting reversible contraceptives (SARC), long-acting (LARC), and permanent. The explanatory variables were characteristics of reproductive history, sociodemographic history, and access to health services. Multinomial logistic regression was used for odds ratio (OR) estimates, with SARC being the reference category. The analyses were performed in the Survey module of the Stata software, which considered the effect of the complex sampling plan of the 2019 Brazilian National Health Survey. The prevalence of contraceptive use was 83.7%. Of the total number of users, 72% used SARC, 23.2% permanent methods, and 4.8% LARC. Women with higher education, health insurance, who had deliveries, and who participated in reproductive planning groups had a higher chance of using LARC when compared with the use of SARC, while registration at the basic health unit was associated with a lower chance of use. Still, the higher the age and parity, in addition to living with the partner, the greater the chance of using permanent methods in relation to the use of SARC. Despite the high coverage of contraception, the contraceptive mix remains obsolete, with a predominance of the use of SARC. In addition, important inequalities in access were observed, with LARC being accessible only to women with better socioeconomic conditions, while permanent methods were associated with a profile of greater social vulnerability.
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.