ArticleReproductive health2025
Deriving national and disaggregated estimates for the demand for family planning satisfied indicator from contraceptive prevalence using household health surveys.
Article in Reproductive health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDemand for family planning satisfied (DFPS) is one of the core indicators for monitoring reproductive health. However, it involves a series of questions that are not always available in national health surveys, hindering the international comparability and tracking progress in those settings. This study updates an alternative method for calculating DFPS based on contraceptive prevalence (CPR) when direct estimation is not feasible.
methodsBased on survey data from 1,099 subnational regions across 103 countries, we fitted least-squares regression models that predicts DFPS for both any contraceptive methods and modern methods. A fractional polynomial approach was employed to account for non-linear relationships. Model performance was assessed using a 5-fold cross-validation strategy, evaluating bias, mean absolute error and correlation.
resultsThe models, using CPR and the difference between total and modern CPR as predictors, were able to explain over 97% of the variability of DFPS by any and modern contraceptives. Bias and the magnitude of the errors were around 0.1 in the cross-validated sample. Validating the results for other inequality dimensions beyond subnational region yielded even better metrics.
conclusionsThe predicted estimates proved to be a good approximation for DFPS in circumstances where direct estimation is not possible. This study confirms that modeling DFPS through contraceptive prevalence remains valid and extends its applicability to DFPS based on modern methods. Furthermore, the estimates were robust for varying inequality dimensions, allowing equity analyses to be performed when appropriate.
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.