Family Planning Practices of Rural Community Dwellers in Cross River State, Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nigeria is the most populous nation in Africa and the seventh most populous in the world. Despite a high fertility rate of 5.5 per woman and a high population growth rate of 3.2%, Nigeria's contraceptive prevalence is 15%, which is one of the lowest in the world. The objective of this study was to determine the knowledge of family planning and family planning preferences and practices of rural community women in Cross River State of Nigeria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study involving 291 rural women. Convenience sampling method was used. The women were assembled in a hall and a semi-structured questionnaire was administered to every consenting woman until the sample size was attained. Data obtained from the study were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 20 and presented in tables as frequencies and percentages as well as figures. Association between categorical variables was explored using chi-square test. Binary logistic regression was also performed to determine predictors of use of at least one family planning method at some point in time. RESULTS: Fifty (17.2%) respondents were using at least one family planning method. One hundred and ninety-eight (68.3%) respondents had used at least one family planning method at some point in time. Reasons given for not using any family planning method included "Family planning is against my religious beliefs" (56%); "it is against our culture" (43.8%); "I need more children" (64.9%); "my partner would not agree" (35.3%); "family planning does not work" (42.9%); "it reduces sexual enjoyment" (76%); and "it promotes unfaithfulness/infidelity" (59%). Binary logistic regression conducted to predict the use of at least one family planning method at some point in time using some independent variables showed that who makes the decision regarding family planning use was the strongest predictor of family planning use (OR = 0.567; 95% CI = 0.391-0.821). This suggests that family planning uptake is more likely when couples make a joint decision. CONCLUSION: The proportion of respondents who were currently using at least one family planning method was low. The findings of this study suggest that family planning uptake would increase if couples make joint decisions in this regard.
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 | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".