Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39402475›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024

Spatial heterogeneity in unintended pregnancy and its determinants in India.

Anshika Singh, Mahashweta Chakrabarty, Aditya Singh, Shivani Singh, Rakesh Chandra, Pooja Tripathi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Anshika Singh *Department of Geography, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8643-7419
Mahashweta Chakrabarty *Department of Geography, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India. mahashweta.c1997@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5151-9572
Aditya SinghDepartment of Geography, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India. adityasingh@bhu.ac.in.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3031-5225
Shivani SinghIndependent Researcher, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6441-0576
Rakesh ChandraSchool of Health Systems Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8330-9809
Pooja TripathiDepartment of Geography, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India. tripathipooja0048@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4449-1940

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding the geographic variation of unintended pregnancy is crucial for informing tailored policies and programs to improve maternal and child health outcomes. Although spatial analyses of unintended pregnancy have been conducted in several developing countries, such research is lacking in India. This study addresses this gap by investigating the geographic distribution and determinants of unintended pregnancy in India.

methodsWe analysed data from the National Family Health Survey-5 encompassing 232,920 pregnancies occurring between 2014 and 2021 in India. We conducted a spatial analysis to investigate the distribution of unintended pregnancies at both state and district levels using choropleth maps. To assess spatial autocorrelation, Global Moran's I statistic was employed. Cluster and outlier analysis techniques were then utilized to identify significant clusters of unintended pregnancies across India. Furthermore, we employed Spatial Lag Model (SLM) and Spatial Error Model (SEM) to investigate the factors influencing the occurrence of unintended pregnancies within districts.

resultsThe national rate of unintended pregnancy in India is approximately 9.1%, but this rate varies significantly between different states and districts of India. The rate exceeded 10% in the states situated in the northern plain such as Haryana, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal, as well as in the Himalayan states of Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, and Arunachal Pradesh. Moreover, within these states, numerous districts reported rates exceeding 15%. The results of Global Moran's I indicated a statistically significant geographical clustering of unintended pregnancy rates at the district level, with a coefficient of 0.47 (p < 0.01). Cluster and outlier analysis further identified three major high-high clusters, predominantly located in the districts of Arunachal Pradesh, northern West Bengal, Bihar, western Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Delhi, alongside a few smaller clusters in Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Himachal Pradesh. This geographic clustering of unintended pregnancy may be attributed to factors such as unmet needs for family planning, preferences for smaller family sizes, or the desire for male children. Results from the SEM underscored that parity and use of modern contraceptive were statistically significant predictors of unintended pregnancy at the district level.

conclusionOur analysis of comprehensive, nationally representative data from NFHS-5 in India reveals significant geographical disparities in unintended pregnancies, evident at both state and district levels. These findings underscore the critical importance of targeted policy interventions, particularly in geographical hotspots, to effectively reduce unintended pregnancy rates and can contribute significantly to improving reproductive health outcomes across the country.

Indexed as

Pregnancy, UnplannedSpatial AnalysisAdolescentAdultFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHealth SurveysHumansIndiaPregnancyYoung AdultIndiaMoran’s INFHSSpatial analysisSpatial autocorrelationSpatial clusteringSpatial dependencyUnintended pregnancyUnplanned pregnancyUnwanted pregnancy

Identifiers

PMID39402475
PMCPMC11472578

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.