Understanding perceived access barriers to contraception through an African feminist lens: a qualitative study in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are many barriers that impact a woman's access to contraception in rural sub-Saharan Africa, such as financial constraints, supply shortages, stigma, and misconceptions. Through and African Feminist lens, this study examines how these perceived barriers intersect with each other, and how they negatively impact women's access to family planning and their perceived value of contraceptives in Luweero, Uganda. METHODS: This qualitative study analyzed data collected from healthcare workers at one private clinic and one public clinic that offer family planning services in four focus group discussions in Luweero, Central Region, Uganda. Two focus group discussions were held in each clinic. Eligible participants spoke English, were at least 18 years of age, and had at least 3 years of experience as a healthcare worker in Luweero. Among the participants were nurses, midwives, family planning counsellors, and village health workers, both male and female. Coded transcripts were analyzed using a reflexive methodology through an African Feminist lens. RESULTS: Most of the responses indicated that financial constraints experienced either by the clinic or the women significantly impact access to family planning. Certain social barriers were discussed, and the participants explained that barriers such as stigma, misconceptions, lack of knowledge, religiosity and cultural values impact women's motivation or ability to access contraceptive methods. Side effects also have a significant role to play in women's ability or motivation to navigate through these perceived social barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Participants determined that increased funding for transportation for village health teams, consistent funding for free contraception, and expanded sensitization efforts that particularly target men would be some of the most impactful methods they can adapt to address some of these barriers.
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".