Unmet need and unintended fertility: longitudinal evidence from upper Egypt.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Although unmet need for family planning is a standard measure for evaluating programs' effectiveness in meeting the reproductive needs of individuals, its validity and accuracy in identifying women most at risk of unintended pregnancy have been questioned. METHODS: Women who participated in the 1995 Egypt Demographic and Health Survey in two governorates in Upper Egypt (Assuit and Souhag) were followed for two years (N=2,444); in-depth data on their fertility preferences, contraceptive use and births were gathered in 1996 and 1997. Transitions among contraceptive need categories from 1995 to 1997 are examined, and rates of unintended (mistimed and unwanted) births are calculated according to contraceptive need status at baseline. RESULTS: In the aggregate, unmet need increased by six percentage points, from 28% to 34%. This change was the net outcome of 14% moving out of unmet need and 20% moving into unmet need (i.e., substantial satisfaction of unmet need was offset by increased demand for contraception). The rate of unintended fertility was far higher among women with unmet need at baseline than among contraceptive users in 1995. Women with unmet need made up about one-quarter of the baseline sample, but they contributed almost one-half of mistimed and unwanted births during the two years. The majority of unintended births were to women who had never practiced contraception, whereas fewer than one-fifth were to women with recent contraceptive experience (including contraceptive failure). CONCLUSIONS: : Unmet need for family planning remains a useful tool for identifying and targeting women at high risk of unintended pregnancy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".