Observational studyJournal of health, population, and nutrition2026
Heterogeneous wealth-related differences in modern contraceptive use in Bangladesh: a machine learning-based g-computation analysis of the DHS 2022 cross-sectional survey.
Observational study in Journal of health, population, and nutrition, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConventional logistic regression estimates a single population-average odds ratio (OR), masking heterogeneity in how social determinants affect health outcomes across population subgroups. We applied machine learning (ML)-based stratified g-computation to estimate individual-specific wealth-associated counterfactual ORs of household wealth on modern contraceptive use among currently married Bangladeshi women in the two extreme wealth quintiles.
methodsWe analyzed 11,510 currently married women in the poorest and richest wealth quintiles from the Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS) 2022. Six model classes (Logistic Regression, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, XGBoost, LightGBM, Stacking Ensemble) were compared with five-fold cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis, primary sampling unit (PSU)-level bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs), doubly-robust augmented inverse probability weighted (AIPW) sensitivity analysis, Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate (BH-FDR) correction, and E-value analysis were conducted. Findings apply to the two extreme wealth quintiles and should not be extrapolated to the middle three quintiles.
resultsModern contraceptive prevalence was 37.7% in the poorest quintile versus 32.6% in the richest. The Stacking Ensemble achieved the highest CV-AUC (0.7108). All six AIPW estimates were near-null ([Formula: see text]-0.83), revealing that the aggregate wealth effect is zero because opposing subgroup effects cancel: a [Formula: see text] percentage-point absolute risk difference (ARD) in the 35-49/higher-education subgroup is precisely offset by a [Formula: see text] percentage-point ARD in the 15-24/primary-education subgroup. Individual ORs exhibited a Gini coefficient of 0.4525 (95% bootstrap CI: 0.4475-0.4568); interaction tests confirmed heterogeneity by education ([Formula: see text]) and age ([Formula: see text]). Median ORs ranged 6.4-fold: from 0.552 (15-24/primary; FDR [Formula: see text]) to 3.557 (35-49/higher; E-value = 6.57). Parity was the strongest SHAP predictive contributor, followed by employment and age.
conclusionsWealth-associated counterfactual OR differences in contraceptive use are patterned within demographic subgroups; population-average estimates are zero because opposing effects cancel, and only individual-level ML-based g-computation reveals this structure. The programmatic targeting framework derived from this approach offers a reproducible prioritisation tool for health equity analyses in any DHS-based survey.
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.