Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38055707›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2023

Family planning uptake and its associated factors among women of reproductive age in Uganda: An insight from the Uganda Demographic and Health Survey 2016.

Anthony Mark Ochen, Che Chi Primus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

2 authors.

Anthony Mark OchenDepartment of Health Services, Alebtong District Local Government, Lira, Uganda.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3355-6753
Che Chi PrimusKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the government efforts to reduce the high fertility levels and increase the uptake of family planning services in Uganda, family planning use was still low at 30% in 2020 which was the lowest in the East African region. This study was undertaken to determine the prevalence and factors associated with the uptake of family planning methods among women of reproductive age in Uganda. This community-based cross-sectional study utilized secondary data from the Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (UDHS) of 2016. The survey data was downloaded from the Measure Demographic Health Survey website after data use permission was granted. Data was collected from a representative sample of women of the reproductive age group (15-49 years) from all 15 regions in Uganda. A total of 19,088 eligible women were interviewed but interviews were completed with 18,506 women. Data analysis was performed using SPSS statistical software version 32.0 where univariable, bivariable, and multivariable analyses were conducted. The prevalence of family planning use was found to be 29.3% and that of modern contraceptive use was found to be 26.6%. Multivariable analysis showed higher odds of current family planning use among older women (40-44 years) (aOR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.40-3.12); women who had attained the secondary level of education (aOR = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.32-2.76); those living in households with the highest wealth index (aOR = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.29-2.72); and awareness of the availability of family planning methods (aOR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.17-1.72). In conclusion, the study suggests improving women's education attainment, socio-economic position, and awareness may help increase use in the population.

Identifiers

PMID38055707
PMCPMC10699646

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.