ArticleCureus2025
A Study on Contraceptive Choices and Usage Trends Among Reproductive Age Individuals in Urban and Rural Areas.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background Contraceptive utilization is a key element of reproductive health and family planning. Despite national initiatives promoting modern contraceptive methods in India, substantial disparities persist between urban and rural populations. This study was done to compare the prevalence, types, and determinants of contraceptive use, including unmet needs, among reproductive-aged individuals in urban and rural settings. Methods A mixed-methods study was conducted over three months among 1,000 individuals (608 urban, 392 rural) aged ≥18 years in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. Participants were recruited through convenience sampling from urban and rural health training centers affiliated with Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire covering demographics, reproductive history, contraceptive use, and reasons for unmet needs. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS software, version 23 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) with Chi-square tests and logistic regression; qualitative data underwent thematic analysis. Results The overall contraceptive prevalence was 58.7%, significantly higher in urban areas (74.01%) than rural areas (34.95%) (p < 0.001). Female sterilization was most common in rural areas (50%), while urban participants favored barrier methods (25%) and oral contraceptive pills (14.97%). Literacy (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 2.80; 95% CI: 2.05-3.82) and urban residence (AOR = 4.20; 95% CI: 3.25-5.43) were significant predictors. Barriers included fear of side effects, religious beliefs, spousal opposition, and limited service access. Conclusion This study highlights a stark contrast in contraceptive trends between urban and rural populations, shaped by educational status, access, cultural beliefs, and gender dynamics. Addressing unmet needs in family planning requires community-tailored interventions focusing on male engagement, contraceptive education, and strengthening the health system to improve accessibility and autonomy in reproductive choices.
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.