MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2598557798 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.43.2.301

Factors Associated with the Use of Withdrawal in Iran: Do Fertility Intentions Matter?

2012· article· en· W2598557798 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Amir Erfani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilityFamily planningDemographyParity (physics)Logistic regressionPopulationMedicineSocioeconomic statusMarital statusPsychologySociologyResearch methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The majority of unwanted pregnancies in Iran are due to withdrawal failures. This study seeks to explore factors associated with withdrawal use, which is highly prevalent among Iranian married couples. Multivariate logistic regression analyses are employed to estimate the likelihood of using withdrawal rather than modern contraceptives among a representative sample of 6199 Iranian married women using contraception, taken from the 2000 Iran Demographic and Health Survey. Among other findings, women’s fertility intentions strongly interacted with women’s parity, number of son, and wealth status, where birth limiters with a lower wealth status, lower parity, and no son were more likely to use withdrawal rather than modern contraceptives. Other results showed that higher education levels and economic status were strongly associated with the greater likelihood of using withdrawal rather than modern contraceptives. Women who lived in urban areas and were unemployed and who had a smaller number of children were more likely to use withdrawal rather than a modern contraceptive method. Compared with younger women, those aged 40-49 were more likely to use withdrawal than modern methods. A reduction in unwanted pregnancies can best be achieved by improving the current family planning program in regions and among subgroups of the population who regulate their fertility by using withdrawal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.266
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.120 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207