Myths and Fallacies about Male Contraceptive Methods: A Qualitative Study amongst Married Youth in Slums of Karachi, Pakistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pakistan presently has one of the largest cohorts of young people in its history, with around 36 million people between the ages of 15 and 24 years. One of the main reasons for high population growth in Pakistan is almost stagnant contraceptive prevalence rate of 30% nationally and 17.4% amongst youth. The study was conducted to explore the perceptions regarding myths and fallacies related to male contraceptive methods among married youth aged 18-24 year in Karachi, Pakistan. Qualitative exploratory study design was adopted and a total of eight Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted. Study was conducted in two Union Councils of Korangi Town in the squatter settlement of Karachi, Pakistan from July to September 2010. Thematic analysis was done manually. General, physical, sexual, psychological, socio-cultural and religious were the common categories which lead to myths and fallacies related to condoms use and vasectomy among the married youth. The foremost myth amongst male and female youth was that use of both condoms and vasectomy cause impotence in males. Additionally, condoms were thought to cause infections, backache and headache in males. Some youth of the area think that vasectomy is meant for prisoners only. In conclusion our findings suggest that the potential reasons behind low use of male contraceptive methods among youth of squatter settlement of Karachi were myths and fallacies about male contraceptive methods. There are some important policy implications like counseling of the couple through peers and well trained family planning service providers to address these myths and misconceptions from the minds of youth.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".