ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Scoping review of qualitative studies on family planning in Uganda.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploration of Nakivale Refugees' and Stakeholders' Perceptions and Priorities of Male Engagement in Pregnancy, Childbirth, Postpartum, and Family Planning: A Qualitative Study.Journal of pregnancy · 2025Article
- Determinants of contraceptive use and intention to use among youth 15-24 years from a remote pastoral community in Northeastern, Uganda.Frontiers in global women's health · 2025Article
- A scoping review of qualitative studies on sexual and reproductive health and rights in Uganda: Exploring factors at multiple levels.Women's health (London, England)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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Family planning (FP) is an essential component of public health programs and significantly impacts maternal and child health outcomes. In Uganda, there is a need for a comprehensive review of the existing literature on FP to inform future research and programmatic efforts. This scoping review aims to identify factors shaping the use of FP in Uganda. We conducted a systematic search of eight scholarly databases, for qualitative studies on FP in Uganda. We screened the titles and abstracts of identified articles published between 2002-2023 and assessed their eligibility based on predefined criteria. We extracted data from the 71 eligible studies and synthesized the findings using thematic analysis and the Ecological Systems Theory (EST) individual, interpersonal, community, institutional, and policy-level determinants. Findings reveal the interplay of factors at different socio-ecological levels influencing family planning decisions. At the individual level, the most common determinants related to the EST were knowledge and attitudes of FP. Interpersonal dynamics, including partner communication and social support networks, played pivotal roles. Community-level factors, such as cultural norms and accessibility of services, significantly influenced family planning practices. Institutional and policy-level factors, particularly a healthcare system's quality and policies, also shaped use. Other themes included the intersection of HIV/AIDS on FP practice and Ugandan views of comprehensive abortion care. This scoping review underscores the intricate socio-ecological fabric shaping FP in Uganda. The findings highlight the need for targeted interventions to increase knowledge and awareness of FP, improve access to services, and address social and cultural norms that discourage contraceptive use. Policymakers and program implementers should also consider gender dynamics and power imbalances in FP programs to ensure they are equitable and effective.
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.