Knowledge of preconception care and its association with family planning utilization among women in Ethiopia: meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Preconception care (PCC) increases the chance of couple’s being healthy and having a healthier baby. It is an important strategy to prevent maternal and perinatal complications. The level of knowledge on preconception care increases its uptake. It is also considered as an input for further intervention of reduction in maternal and neonatal mortality enabling progress towards sustainable development goals (SDGs). Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the pooled knowledge level of PCC and its association with family planning usage among women in Ethiopia. All observational studies regardless of publication status were retrieved. Important search terms were used to search articles in Google scholar, African Journals Online, CINHAL, HINARI, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed/Medline. Independent critical appraisal of retrieved studies was done using the Newcastle–Ottawa assessment checklist. The meta-analysis was conducted using STATA version 14 software. The I 2 statistics were used to test heterogeneity, whereas publication bias was assessed by Begg’s and Egger’s tests. The results of the meta-analysis were explained in the Odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and presented using forest plots. A total of seven articles were included in the current systematic review and meta-analysis. Based on the data retrieved from the articles, 35.7% of women in Ethiopia had good knowledge about preconception care. The subgroup analysis based on region revealed the lowest (22.34%) and highest (45.06%) percentage of good knowledge on preconception care among women who were living in Amhara and Oromia regions, respectively. Moreover, women who utilized family planning services were three and more times (OR 3.65 (95% CI 2.11, 6.31)) more likely to have a good level of knowledge about preconception care. One-third of Ethiopian women had good knowledge about preconception care. Family planning utilization had a positive impact on women’s knowledge of preconception care.
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 | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.051 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".