Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40604732›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2025

Influence of social networks on women's contraceptive decision-making and action: a qualitative study in two districts in Uganda.

Catherine Birabwa, Dinah Amongin, Peter Waiswa, Beth Phillips, Ronald Wasswa, Lauren Suchman, Erica Sedlander, Kelsey Holt, Lynn Atuyambe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Catherine BirabwaDepartment of Health Policy, Planning and Management, Makerere University School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda. cbirabwa@musph.ac.ug.
Dinah AmonginDepartment of Health Policy, Planning and Management, Makerere University School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Peter WaiswaDepartment of Health Policy, Planning and Management, Makerere University School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Beth PhillipsDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, United States.
Ronald WasswaDepartment of Health Policy, Planning and Management, Makerere University School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Lauren SuchmanDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, United States.
Erica SedlanderInstitute for Health and Aging, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, United States.
Kelsey HoltDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, United States.
Lynn AtuyambeDepartment of Community Health and Behavioural Sciences, Makerere University School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda.

Funding

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation OPP1216593
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen in sub-Saharan Africa often lack agency to make their own contraceptive decisions, more so in rural settings. Evidence indicates that social networks influence contraceptive decision-making and behaviours but there is limited information on the dynamics between women and their network members. We explored ways in which women's social networks influenced their agency to make contraceptive decisions.

methodsWe conducted an exploratory qualitative study, between February and May 2021, among 60 women (15-45 years) from two largely rural districts in Uganda. Data were collected using semi-structured audio-recorded in-depth interviews which were transcribed verbatim. We used thematic analysis guided by constructs from social network mechanisms to analyze the data.

resultsHalf of the participants were adolescents (15-19 years) and 62% (37/60) were current contraception users. We found that participants most commonly involved partners, relatives, and peers in their contraceptive decision-making. Social support emerged as the most common mechanism through which these network members influenced women's agency in making and acting on their contraceptive decisions. This was mainly in the form of informational and emotional support. Informational support, mostly provided by relatives and peers, included advice to adopt contraception particularly given to participants who desired to better manage their families, describing lived experiences, directing women to formal contraceptive services, and sharing perceived/actual side effects of contraceptive use. Emotional support, provided by partners and relatives, involved acknowledging and validating decisions, as well as providing reassurance regarding contraceptive experiences. Some women also received instrumental support (reminders to get dose/method and exempting women from responsibilities to go seek contraceptive services). The mechanism of social influence was also at play with social pressure to give birth.

conclusionsOur study highlights how different types of social support from partners, relatives, and peers can either bolster or undermine women's agency in making contraceptive decisions. Informational support from relatives and peers can boost women's certainty in their intentions, while emotional support from partners boosts their confidence to act on these intentions. Multipronged approaches targeting these networks are necessary to promote women's agency in making contraceptive decisions.

Indexed as

ContraceptionContraception BehaviorDecision MakingSocial SupportAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchRural PopulationUgandaYoung AdultContraceptionContraceptive decision-makingFamily planningNetwork mechanismsRuralSocial networksUganda

Identifiers

PMID40604732
PMCPMC12218828

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.