Prevalence and Determinants of Unintended Pregnancy : Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Unplanned pregnancy is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality and morbidity in the world. The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the findings of various studies regarding prevalence and determinates of unintended pregnancy.Data sources: A range of electronic databases was searched for studies conducted in developing countries and published between 1990 and 2015. English-language publications were searched using relevant keywords, and reference lists were hand searched. Review methods: A systematic review was carried out for all the quantitative studies which met the inclusion criteria. The quality of selected studies was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Twenty-two papers were included in the review. Average prevalence of unintended pregnancy was estimated to be 35% ranging from 13% to 82%. The predictors of unintended pregnancy were found to be, socio-demographic factors include women's age, women's education, parity, birth order and interval, previous pregnancy intention, age at the time of marriage, socioeconomic status, marital status, religion, caste, and ethnicity. Conclusion: Main correlates were found to be age, parity, educational and economic status. This means that undertaking outreach in poor countries might be helpful in fulfilling the needs of Family planning for these women. Furthermore, community-based distribution of family planning methods or counseling should be targeted to the illiterate older aged women of reproductive age with poor socioeconomic status.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".