ArticleHeliyon2024
Socioeconomic inequalities in contraceptive use among Brazilian women: A multilevel analysis stratified by parity.
Article in Heliyon, 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.
- Inequities in contraceptive use among adults in Lebanon: a national study.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Inequalities in the health care system utilization for intrauterine device insertion.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2026Article
- Sociodemographic factors associated with modern contraceptive use in Japan: an analysis of national survey data.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate if individual and contextual socioeconomic factors are associated with contraceptive use in Brazilian women from 18 to 49 years old, stratified by parity. Methods: Cross-sectional, population-based study that analyzed data from 16,879 women from 18 to 49 years old, respondents of the 2013 National Health Survey. Individual factors such as reproductive history, access to health services, and sociodemographic characteristics were considered; and as contextual factors, Human Development Index (HDI), Sociodemographic Index (SDI) Primary Health Care Coverage (PHC coverage) and Average Monthly Income were included. Multilevel logistic regression models were estimated, stratified by parity, with women being level 1 and States and Federal District of level 2 units. Results: Nulliparous women had lower prevalence of contraceptive use (77.9 %) when compared with primiparous and multiparous (88.7 %), as well as greater variability in the chance of using contraception (ICC = 2.1 vs. ICC = 1.1, respectively). Women who lived in States with higher levels of HDI, average monthly income and SDI were more likely to use contraception. The greater PHC coverage was positively associated with the use of contraceptives for primiparous/multiparous women and negatively for the nulliparous. Furthermore, higher education increased the chances of using contraception, both for nulliparous and primiparous/multiparous women. Conclusions: The high contraceptive coverage in Brazil hides important inequities in access, highlighting contextual characteristics associated with the use of contraceptives, in addition to individual factors. The lower prevalence and chance of using contraceptives for nulliparous women with greater social vulnerability reveal inequity and priority in public policies. Implications for practice: The need to improve access to contraception is highlighted, considering both the individual and contextual vulnerabilities of women, which implies ensuring timely and qualified access to contraceptive methods, especially for young and nulliparous women who are more socially vulnerable.
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.