ArticleBMJ public health2025
Prevalence of postpartum family planning uptake and its association with couples' joint decision-making: a community-based cross-sectional study in rural Sindh, Pakistan.
Article in BMJ public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06324773 (Prevalence of Postpartum Family Planning Uptake and Its Association With Joint Spousal Decision-Making in Family Planning), which is not on this 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.
Prevalence of Postpartum Family Planning Uptake and Its Association With Joint Spousal Decision-Making in Family Planning: A Community-Based Cross-Sectional Study in Rural Sindh, Pakistan
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Introduction: Postpartum family planning (PPFP) prevents unintended and closely spaced pregnancies, reducing maternal nutritional and physiological strain and improving maternal and child health. In settings like Pakistan, where husbands often influence reproductive choices, couples' joint decision-making, which reflects shared negotiation and mutual agreement rather than general partner support or permission, may shape contraceptive uptake through its emphasis on shared agency. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of PPFP use and examine its association with couples' joint decision-making. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from April to July 2024 in the Global Network's Maternal and Newborn Health Registry catchment area in Thatta District, Sindh, Pakistan. PPFP use was defined as the current use of any modern contraceptive method among women who were 12 months postpartum (binary outcome), representing contraceptive uptake during the first year after childbirth. Joint decision-making was assessed as a binary variable indicating whether decisions specifically related to contraceptive use or non-use were made jointly with the husband or independently by either spouse/someone else. Data were collected using Epicollect5 after informed consent and analysed using multiple logistic regression to estimate adjusted ORs. Results: Among 524 participants, the mean age was 29.8±4.9 years. The prevalence of PPFP uptake was 39.7% with injectables being the most used method 33.1%. Couples' joint decision-making increased PPFP uptake (adjusted OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.1 to 2.7) while decisions made solely by husbands were more common among non-users. In addition, the number of living children, wife's formal education, husband's education and women's autonomy in at least one household decision were significantly associated with increased PPFP uptake. Conclusion: Joint decision-making between spouses on contraceptive use was associated with increased postpartum contraceptive use, highlighting the importance of male involvement and shared responsibility in reproductive health decisions. Interventions that encourage open partner communication may strengthen contraceptive uptake and contribute to improved maternal and child health outcomes. Trial registration number: NCT06324773.
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.