Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39070601›Full record

ArticleBulletin of the World Health Organization2024

Comparison of two survey methods for estimating unplanned pregnancy, Bangladesh.

Md Nuruzzaman Khan, Shimlin Jahan Khanam, Melissa L Harris

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Md Nuruzzaman KhanDepartment of Population Science, Jatiya Kabi Nazrul Islam University, Trishal-2204, Mymensingh, Bangladesh.
Shimlin Jahan KhanamDepartment of Population Science, Jatiya Kabi Nazrul Islam University, Trishal-2204, Mymensingh, Bangladesh.
Melissa L HarrisCentre for Women's Health Research, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To compare the prevalence of unintended pregnancy measured by the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) and the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy in Bangladesh, and explore the extent of discordance between the measures and the factors associated with the discordance. Methods: In 2023, we conducted a cross-sectional survey in four randomly selected districts in Bangladesh: Kurigram, Mymensingh, Pabna and Satkhira. We randomly selected 20 hospitals, five from each district. We collected data from 1200 women who had recently delivered a baby and were visiting the hospitals for postnatal care. We interviewed the women about their pregnancy intention in their last pregnancy using questions in the DHS and the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy and examined the discordance in their responses. We used multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with discordant responses in reported pregnancy intention. Findings: The prevalence of unintended pregnancy was 24.3% (292/1200) using the DHS measure and 31.0% (373/1200) using the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy. Discordance in responses to pregnancy intention between the two measures was 27.1% (325/1200). Factors associated with discordance were older age, female sex of the last child born, having more than two children, being in a poorer wealth quintile, living in a rural area and living in Kurigram district. Conclusion: The prevalence of unintended pregnancy in Bangladesh measured by the DHS measure may be an underestimate, suggesting that the adverse effects of unintended pregnancy are greater than realized and emphasizing the need to bolster Bangladesh's family planning programme.

Indexed as

Pregnancy, UnplannedAdolescentAdultBangladeshCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth SurveysHumansMiddle AgedPregnancyPrevalenceSociodemographic FactorsSocioeconomic FactorsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39070601
PMCPMC11276160

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.