SynthesisFrontiers in global women's health2025
Post-abortion contraceptive uptake, choices, and factors associated with it among women seeking abortion services in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in global women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evidence and determinants of post-abortion family planning utilization among women of reproductive age in Africa: an umbrella review.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2025Pooled it
- Perceived factors shaping unsafe abortion practices among young women in Bongo District, Ghana.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Article
- Determinants and dynamics of repeat unsafe abortion in Ghana-a mixed-method study at Tema General Hospital.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Article
- Second-Trimester Uterine Rupture in an Unscarred Uterus Following Self-Administered Misoprostol: A Case Report and Literature Review.Clinical medicine insights. Case 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In Africa, over one-third of women experience multiple abortions, often due to inadequate access to effective modern contraceptives. This highlights a critical gap in understanding the patterns and predictors of post-abortion contraceptive (PAC) use. To address this issue, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the uptake of PAC and associated factors among African women who received abortion services. Methods: Following the PRISMA guideline, all articles published between January 1, 2015, and December 30, 2023, were systematically retrieved from multiple databases. Articles reporting PAC uptake among African women were included. The pooled prevalence of Post-abortion contraceptive uptake was determined using a random effects model. The variation between the included studies was assessed using a funnel plot and Results: From 48 articles, a total of 84,205 women who underwent abortion services were included in the analysis. The pooled prevalence of PAC uptake in Africa was 58.78% (95% CI: 52.36-65.21), with high heterogeneity ( Conclusion: The uptake of PAC in Africa stands at 58.78%, which is considered low according to the World Health Organization's recommendation that all women should postpone conception for six months following an abortion. There was also a decline of 20.22% between 2020 and 2023 compared to the pooled uptake between 2015 and 2019. To address this, it is crucial to enhance women's awareness of post-abortion contraception, the conception risks after abortion, and to strengthen client-centered counseling alongside women's education. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024505129, PROSPERO CRD42024505129.
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.