ArticleReproductive health2025
Sexual and reproductive health (SRH) knowledge of women: a cross-sectional study among the women experienced abortion in urban slums, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Article in Reproductive health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Attitude and Involvement Regarding Sexual and Reproductive Health Among University Students: A Cross-Sectional Study in Bangladesh.Health science reports · 2026Article
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
backgroundWomen in urban slums are particularly susceptible due to a lack of knowledge about sexual and reproductive health (SRH), and abortion is frequently performed. Our study investigates the level and predictors of SRH knowledge among the reproductive-aged women who have had abortions and lived in urban slums in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
methodsWe adopted a cross-sectional survey among the reproductive-aged women who experienced any kind of abortion from July 2020 to January 2022 living in the UHDSS sites, applying a predefined interviewer-assisted survey questionnaire. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (i.e., mean, standard error, and 95% confidence interval (CI)) for continuous and percentage distribution for categorical variables. Bi-variate analysis was used to examine for associations. After checking the assumptions, multinomial regression analysis was used to confirm the determinants with 95% CIs.
resultsA total of 338 women participated (221 spontaneous abortions and 117 induced abortions) with an average age of 26.59 ± 0.355, age at first marriage of 16.69 ± 0.173, and marital length of 9.45 ± 0.386. Except for the use of emergency contraceptives (32%), many women correctly identified condom effectiveness for preventing pregnancy (89%), STDs and HIV/AIDS prevention (79-80%), and abortion (98%). About 34 to 64% of them experienced stigmas attached to sexually explicit items. Few of them knew about abortion complications (9 to 57%), with the exception of bleeding associated with abortion (91.7%). Overall, 3 out of 4 women lacked sufficient SRH knowledge, with a mean score of 58.28 (95% CI: 56.70, 59.87), which was slightly higher for women who had spontaneous abortions 58.90 (95% CI: 57.02, 60.78) and lower for women who had induced abortions 57.69 (95% CI: 54.94, 60.45). Women aged 20-29 and 30 + years had high level of SRH knowledge than those of under 20 years. Women with higher education, longer marriages, and who availed post abortion care had high level of SRH knowledge than respective counterparts. However, employed slum women other than garment workers had lower levels of SRH knowledge than housewives.
conclusionOur findings can be used in the abortion policies and strategies for vulnerable women and we recommend an intervention to increase awareness and knowledge on SRH, which is essential for those women to achieve the maternal reproductive health parameters.
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.