ArticleContraception and reproductive medicine2025
Uptake and correlates of modern contraceptive use among women aged 15-49 years in Botswana; evidence from the Botswana demographic survey 2017.
Article in Contraception and reproductive medicine, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBotswana is one of the countries in SSA with the lowest total fertility rate. This study aimed to explore the uptake and correlates of modern contraceptive use among women of reproductive ages (15-49 years) in Botswana.
methodsThe study used secondary data from the 2017 Botswana Demographic Survey. The study used a weighted sample of 1,120,008 women aged 15-49 years, who successfully completed the Botswana Demographic Survey questionnaire. Logistic regression models were used to derive adjusted odd ratio as the measures of association between need, predisposing and enabling factors, and modern contraceptive use among women. All comparisons are considered statistically significant at p > 0.01.
resultsFrom the 1,120,008 women included in the analysis, contraceptive prevalence was estimated at 80.4%. The most used methods of contraception among the sampled women were condoms (64.2%), followed by injectables (17%) and pills (12.6%). After controlling for confounders, the odds of contraceptive use were significantly higher among women aged 15-24 years (AOR = 1.41; 95% CI: 1.36-1.46) and 25-34 years (AOR = 1.78; 95% CI: 1.73-1.83), compared to women aged 35-49 years. Other significant correlates of contraceptive use included residing in rural areas (AOR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.91-0.96), having primary (AOR = 1.82; 95% CI: 1.59-2.08) or secondary education (AOR = 2.41; 95% CI: 2.21-2.62), and accessing contraceptives from health facilities (AOR = 1.28; 95% CI: 1.24-1.68), compared to their respective counterparts. Conversely, after adjusting for confounders, the odds of contraceptive use were significantly lower among women who identified as Christians (AOR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.88-0.94), those of other non-Christian religions (AOR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.75-0.86), married women (AOR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.83-0.87), and women who reported experiencing complications (AOR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.26-0.28), compared to their respective counterparts.
conclusionThe study reveals a high contraceptive prevalence (80.4%) among women, with condoms being the most used method. Younger women (aged 15-34), those with formal education, and those accessing services from health facilities were more likely to use contraceptives. However, contraceptive use was significantly lower among women in rural areas, those identifying with religious affiliations (both Christian and non-Christian), married women, and those who had experienced complications. These findings highlight the need for targeted interventions that address religious beliefs, marital dynamics, healthcare access in rural areas, and management of contraceptive-related complications.
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.