Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41921089›Full record

ArticleStudies in family planning2026

Methodological Innovations for Evidencing and Estimating Modern and Traditional Contraceptive Prevalence and Use Dynamics in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Nurudeen Alhassan, Nyovani Janet Madise, Jamaica Corker, Naa Dodua Dodoo, Ernestina Coast, F Nii-Amoo Dodoo, Jacques B O Emina, Saseendran Pallikadavath, Elizabeth Omoluabi, Maame B Peterson and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Studies in family planning, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Nyovani Janet Madise
Jamaica Corker
Naa Dodua Dodoo
Ernestina Coast
F Nii-Amoo Dodoo
Jacques B O Emina
Saseendran Pallikadavath
Elizabeth Omoluabi
Maame B Peterson
John A Mushomi
Themba Mzembe
Eliya Msiyaphazi Zulu

Funding

Gates Foundation INV-006353
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Contraceptive prevalence estimates are indicators of the performance of family planning programs. Yet, available evidence suggests that national surveys may be underestimating the prevalence of traditional methods. The apparent underestimation of traditional methods stems from current approaches for collecting, analyzing, and reporting contraceptive data. We examined the effect of survey methodological innovations on the estimation of traditional and modern contraceptives. We used data from a cross-country comparative study conducted in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria. The sample comprised 9,075 in union and sexually active women not in union aged 15-49 years. The results showed that follow-up method-by-method questioning increased the reporting of both traditional and modern methods, with the increase being much higher for modern methods, while reducing the percentage of nonusers. Revising the standard approach for computing contraceptive prevalence to account separately for concurrent traditional and modern method use revealed substantial underestimation of traditional method use, particularly in DRC and Ghana. These findings underscore the need to revise the current framing of questions and estimation approaches to improve the accuracy of contraceptive use estimates. The findings also highlight the importance of taking into account concurrent use of traditional and modern methods, which is often ignored in family planning research.

Indexed as

ContraceptionContraception BehaviorFamily Planning ServicesAdolescentAdultAfrica South of the SaharaFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPrevalenceYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41921089
PMCPMC13275036

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.