Negotiation of the use of medical contraception: Levers and obstacles within married couples in Benin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In developing countries, millions of married women who want to use medical contraception are unable to do so for various reasons. To address this gap in access to contraception international development actors are emphasizing, among other things, the implementation of empowerment programs for women to enable them to take ownership of issues related to their sexual and reproductive health. Nevertheless, studies show that beyond their socio-demographic characteristics, negotiating contraception as a couple is the essential determinant of medical contraception usage among married women in developing countries. Thus, some authors suggest that this aspect be considered in the strategies of national family planning programs. However, we do not know much about the reasons underlying the negotiation or silence around contraception in Beninese married couples. To fill this gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews with women and men living as married couples in Benin. The results show that this type of negotiation is mainly influenced by specific factors that can act as levers or obstacles. These data could help family planning service providers in Benin and possibly other developing countries to ensure greater contraceptive use among married women.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".