Understanding the association between informed choice and long‐term reversible contraception among Ugandan women: Findings from the 2016 Demographic Health Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To understand the relationship between informed choice and long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) use among women aged 15-49 years in Uganda after adjusting for potential confounding. METHODS: test were used for the bivariable analysis. A design-adjusted multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between informed choice and LARC use. Propensity score matching was conducted as a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: In all, 3646 women were included in the analysis and 975 reported using a LARC. In the design-adjusted multivariable analysis, the odds of reporting LARC usage were 1.98 (95% confidence interval 1.61-2.43) times higher among women who reported informed choice compared with those who did not. The subsequent propensity score analysis reported similar findings. CONCLUSION: Providing informed choice can help to increase the number of women who use LARC in Uganda. As such, the Ugandan Ministry of Health should further expand access to family planning counseling as it could contribute to the reduction of unplanned pregnancies across Uganda with the use of LARC.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".