Barriers to Modern Contraceptive Use in Kinshasa, DRC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research from Kinshasa, DRC, has shown that only one in five married women uses modern contraception; over one quarter have an unmet need for family planning; and almost 400 health facilities across Kinshasa report that they provide modern contraception. This study addresses the question: with reasonable physical access and relatively high unmet need, why is modern contraceptive prevalence so low? To this end, the research team conducted 6 focus groups of women (non-users of any method, users of traditional methods, and users of modern methods) and 4 of husbands (of users of traditional methods and in non-user unions) in health zones with relatively strong physical access to FP services. Five key barriers emerged from the focus group discussions: fear of side effects (especially sterility), costs of the method, sociocultural norms (especially the dominant position of the male in family decision-making), pressure from family members to avoid modern contraception, and lack of information/misinformation. These findings are very similar to those from 12 other studies of sociocultural barriers to family planning in sub-Saharan Africa. Moreover, they have strong programmatic implications for the training of FP workers to counsel future clients and for the content of behavior change communication interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".