ArticlePloS one2025
Prevalence and determinants of medicinal plants utilization during labour among women of reproductive age in Butiama, Tanzania: A community-based cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Medicinal Plants Used by Tanzanians for Human Paediatric Ailments: A PRISMA-Guided Systematic Review of Ethnomedicinal Evidence.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2026Pooled it
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of certain medicinal plants during childbirth has been linked to negative outcomes such as uterine rupture and foetal distress, both globally and in Sub-Saharan Africa including Tanzania. Despite this, little is known about the factors influencing women's use of medicinal plants during labour or delivery in Tanzania. This study sought to assess the prevalence and determinants of medicinal plants use during labour and/or delivery in the Butiama district. METHODOLOGY: This community-based quantitative study used a cross-sectional design with 398 participants, selected through multistage sampling. Data were collected via a structured questionnaire in Swahili language using the Kobo Toolbox from June to July 2024. Analysis was performed with SPSS version 27.0, including checks for completeness before data entry. Descriptive statistics were computed for univariate analysis, while bivariate analysis, conducted through cross-tabulation, determined relationships between variables. Multivariate logistic regression identified significant predictors at p < 0.05.
resultsIn a study of 398 participants, 233(58.5%) reported using medicinal plants during labour and/or delivery. Peasants and homemakers had 2.6 times higher odds of using medicinal plants than those in formal employment (AOR = 2.584, 95% CI: 1.249-5.349, p = 0.011). Women with one child were 1.8 times more likely to use medicinal plants than those with two or more children (AOR = 1.823, 95% CI: 1.136-2.926, p = 0.013). Women within five kilometres of a health facility had 47.7% lower odds of using medicinal plants compared to their counterparts (AOR = 0.523, 95% CI: 0.334-0.819, p = 0.005). Married and cohabiting women were 42.1% less likely to use medicinal plants than divorced/separated/widowed women (AOR = 0.579, 95% CI: 0.338-0.990, p = 0.046). Women with fewer than four antenatal visits were 55.6% more likely to use medicinal plants compared to those with four or more visits. (AOR = 0.556, 95% CI: 0.365-0.848, p = 0.006).
conclusionOver fifty percent of participants reported using medicinal plants during childbirth, with socio-economic status and healthcare access factors suggesting that targeted education and interventions around medicinal plant use would be beneficial.
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.