SynthesisFrontiers in reproductive health2025
Evidence and determinants of post-abortion family planning utilization among women of reproductive age in Africa: an umbrella review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in reproductive health, 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.
- Women's family planning status in Ethiopia: A geo-additive modeling approach.Global epidemiology · 2026Article
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: Post-abortion family planning (PAFP), ideally initiated within 48 h, is crucial for preventing unplanned pregnancies. Repeat-induced abortion remains a significant challenge to the sexual and reproductive health of women. Despite numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, inconsistent findings still hinder effective policy formulation and clinical decision-making. In Africa, high rates of unsafe abortion and unintended pregnancy persist, exacerbated by socioeconomic and health system barriers. This umbrella review consolidates global evidence on the prevalence, determinants, and use of PAFP to inform health policy, strengthen service delivery, and promote reproductive health equity, especially in regions with limited access to safe abortion services and contraception. Methods: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on observational studies was conducted. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and Result: This umbrella review included six systematic reviews and meta-analyses, comprising 198 primary studies conducted across 44 African countries, with a combined sample size of 420,832 women of reproductive age assessing post-abortion family planning utilization. This umbrella review found that the pooled prevalence of post-abortion family planning utilization among women of reproductive age in Africa was 62.82% (95% CI: 59.24%-66.40%), indicating substantial uptake but with high heterogeneity across studies ( Conclusion and recommendation: The high prevalence of PAFP utilization in Africa (62.82%), and particularly in Ethiopia (69.31%), reflects encouraging progress. However, the fact that 37.18% of post-abortion women in Africa and 30.69% in Ethiopia still do not use PAFP underscores a critical gap that demands targeted policy action. The predominance of injectable contraceptives highlights the need to expand access to a broader range of methods, including long-acting reversible contraceptives, to support informed and voluntary choice. Policymakers and health planners in Africa should urgently strengthen reproductive health policies by implementing a comprehensive, multipronged strategy to ensure universal access to post-abortion care. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251089314, PROSPERO CRD420251089314.
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.