Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42833725›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Determinants and impact of joint decision-making on contraceptive use among women in union in Nairobi's urban informal settlements: a repeated cross-sectional analysis and agent-based microsimulation using the Nairobi Urban Health and Demographic Surveillance System.

Sharon Chepkemoi, Emmanuel Mnjowe, Reinpeter Momanyi, Tatenda Kavu, Steve Cygu, Samuel Iddi, Agnes Kiragga, Evans Omondi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Sharon ChepkemoiAfrican Population and Health Research Center, Nairobi, Kenya.
Emmanuel MnjoweEast, Central, and Southern African Health Community, Arusha, Tanzania.
Reinpeter MomanyiAfrican Population and Health Research Center, Nairobi, Kenya.
Tatenda KavuAfrican Population and Health Research Center, Nairobi, Kenya.
Steve CyguAfrican Population and Health Research Center, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9284-8863
Samuel IddiAfrican Population and Health Research Center, Nairobi, Kenya.
Agnes KiraggaAfrican Population and Health Research Center, Nairobi, Kenya.
Evans OmondiAfrican Population and Health Research Center, Nairobi, Kenya evansotieno@aims.ac.za.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1779-1043

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo estimate the prevalence and determinants of joint decision-making on contraceptive use among women in union in Nairobi's informal settlements, and to project the contribution of different decision-making patterns to the modern contraceptive prevalence rate (mCPR) over time.

designAnalysis of repeated cross-sectional surveillance data combined with an agent-based microsimulation (Thanzi la Onse-Nairobi Urban Health and Demographic Surveillance System (NUHDSS). Determinants of joint decision-making were examined using multivariable logistic regression, and model performance was assessed using the likelihood ratio test, the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, McFadden pseudo R

settingTwo urban informal settlements, Korogocho and Viwandani, in Nairobi, Kenya, covered by the NUHDSS, 2012-2015.

participants2085 women of reproductive age (15-49 years) who were in union, defined as married or living with a male partner, with complete data on the decision-making outcome. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was joint decision-making on contraceptive use (woman and partner deciding together vs the woman alone or the partner alone). The secondary outcome was the projected mCPR among women in union from 2012 to 2040 under joint, woman-only and spouse-only decision-making scenarios.

resultsJoint decision-making prevalence was 63.7% (95% CI 61.6 to 65.8). In the adjusted model, the odds of joint decision-making were higher in male-headed households (AOR 1.53, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.10, p=0.009), among residents of Viwandani (AOR 1.30, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.64, p=0.024), among women who desired more than five children (AOR 2.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 5.12, p=0.045) and among unemployed women (AOR 1.36, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.69, p=0.006), and lower among women who did not want another child (AOR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.82, p<0.001), were undecided about childbearing (AOR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.87, p=0.006) or had not discussed family size with their partner (AOR 0.39, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.51, p<0.001). In the microsimulation, the contribution of joint decision-making to mCPR among women in union rose from 40% in 2012 to 52% in 2040, exceeding the contributions of woman-only (13% to 18%) and spouse-only (about 1% to 0.5%) decision-making.

conclusionsJoint decision-making was associated with higher modern contraceptive use among women in union in Nairobi's informal settlements, and the microsimulation suggests it may contribute substantially to mCPR over time. Because the design is cross-sectional, these associations should not be interpreted as causal. Programmes that strengthen couple communication, particularly in male-headed households and among unemployed women or couples with undiscussed or discordant fertility preferences, may support progress toward national family planning targets.

Indexed as

Contraception BehaviorDecision MakingAdolescentAdultContraceptionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansKenyaLogistic ModelsMiddle AgedUrban PopulationYoung AdultDecision MakingEPIDEMIOLOGYFamilyHealth

Identifiers

PMID42833725
PMCPMC13647021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.