Pregnancy intention and contraceptive use among HIV-positive Malawian women at 4-26 weeks post-partum: A nested cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Avoiding unintended pregnancies through family planning is a WHO strategy for preventing mother to child transmission of HIV (PMTCT) and maternal morbidity/mortality. We investigated factors associated with unintended index pregnancy, unmet contraceptive need, future pregnancy intention and current contraceptive use among Malawian women living with HIV in the Option B+ era. METHODS: Women who tested HIV positive at 4-26 weeks postpartum were enrolled into a cross-sectional study at high-volume Under-5 clinics. Structured baseline interviews included questions on socio-demographics, HIV knowledge, partner's HIV status/disclosure, ART use, pregnancy intention and contraceptive use. Logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with outcomes. RESULTS: We enrolled 578 HIV-positive women between May 2015-May 2016; median maternal age was 28 years (y) (interquartile-range [IQR]: 23-32), median parity was 3 deliveries (IQR: 2-4) and median infant age was 7 weeks (IQR: 6-12). Overall, 41.8% women reported unintended index pregnancy, of whom 35.0% reported unmet contraceptive need and 65.0% contraceptive failure. In multivariable analysis, unintended index pregnancy was higher in ≥35y vs. 14-24y (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR]: 2.1, 95% Confidence Interval [95%CI]: 1.0-4.2) and in women with parity ≥3 vs. primiparous (aOR: 2.9, 95%CI: 1.5-5.6). Unmet contraceptive need at conception was higher in 14-24y vs. ≥35y (aOR: 4.2, 95%CI: 1.8-9.9), primiparous vs. ≥3 (aOR: 8.3, 95%CI: 1.8-39.5), and women with a partner of unknown HIV-status (aOR: 2.2, 95%CI: 1.2-4.0). Current contraceptive use was associated with being on ART in previous pregnancy (aOR: 2.5, 95%CI: 1.5-3.9). CONCLUSIONS: High prevalence of unintended index pregnancy and unmet contraceptive need among HIV-positive women highlight the need for improved access to contraceptives. To help achieve reproductive goals and elimination of MTCT of HIV, integration of family planning into HIV care should be strengthened to ensure women have timely access to a wide range of family planning methods with low failure risk.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".