ArticlePloS one2024
Differences in condom access and use and associated factors between persons with and without disabilities receiving social cash transfers in Luapula province, Zambia-A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of health impacts of a disability-inclusive graduation programme among ultra-poor people with disabilities in Uganda: secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Use of modern contraceptives on the basis of disability severity in Uganda: analysis of the 2016 demographic and health survey.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Persons with disabilities are disadvantaged in accessing sexual and reproductive health services, including condoms. In this study, we investigated whether condom access and use and their associated factors differed between persons with and without disabilities. We used data from adults in households receiving the Government of Zambia social cash transfers (SCT) in four districts of Luapula province. Condom access and use was the outcome. Disability, defined by the Washington Group Short Set Questions on Disability, was the main predictor. We performed logistic regression analyses to determine the associations between condom access and use and disability. In multivariable analyses, we controlled for covariates including age, sex, marital status, poverty status, HIV testing, and receiving the SCT. The sample comprised 1,143 people aged 16-49, with a median age of 21 years (interquartile range 18-28); 57.4% (n = 656) were female, 86.5% (n = 989) accessed and used condoms, and 17.9% (n = 205) were disabled, rating themselves with a 3 or a 4 on a scale of 1 = "not limited" to 4 = "cannot at all" in performing any of the six daily functions (seeing, hearing, walking, cognition, self-care, or communicating). Nearly sixty percent(58.5% (n = 120)) of persons with disabilities were female, 79.5% (n = 163) reported being very poor, 87.8% (n = 180) reported receiving SCT, and 86.3% (n = 177) reported accessing and using condoms. Condom access and use did not differ between persons with and without disabilities (adjusted odds ratio: 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60-1.98]). We found no differences between persons with and without disabilities in condom access and use. We established that individual-level factors such as age, sex, marital status, and knowledge of being HIV positive might play a more important role in condom access and use than disability. Condom promotion interventions should account for these factors.
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.