ReviewHealth science reports2025
Acceptability and Uptake of Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptives in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Health science reports, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: Despite their high effectiveness, the acceptability and utilization of long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) in Ethiopia remain low and vary across population groups and regions. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the pooled levels of LARC acceptability and utilization by method type, population subgroup, and study context to inform reproductive health programming and policy. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and EBSCOhost (CINAHL), along with grey literature sources including Google Scholar and Google. Studies published between 1st January 2021 and 30th June 2024 that focused on adolescents, reproductive-age women, female healthcare providers, and communities in both rural and urban settings in Ethiopia were included. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024594288). Findings were presented as proportions with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Results: Out of 527 records identified, 50 studies comprising a total of 83,082 participants met the inclusion criteria. The pooled acceptability of LARCs (implants or IUCDs) was estimated at 24% (95% CI: 18%-31%), with implants alone showing higher acceptability at 26% (95% CI: 12%-49%) compared to IUCDs at 19% (95% CI: 12%-30%). The overall utilization of LARCs was 20% (95% CI: 15%-27%), with the highest uptake observed among women in the immediate postpartum or postabortion period at 30% (95% CI: 21%-39%). Utilization of implants alone was 15% (95% CI: 11%-20%), while IUCD use remained lower at 5% (95% CI: 4%-7%), with slightly higher usage in urban areas (9%). Considerable heterogeneity was detected across studies, with I² values exceeding 90%. Conclusion: LARC acceptability and utilization remain suboptimal in Ethiopia, particularly among adolescents and rural populations. Implants are more widely accepted and used than IUCDs. These findings indicate the need for targeted, context-specific interventions to address demographic, cultural, and health system-related barriers to LARC uptake.
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.