Women’s household decision-making power and contraceptive use in Mali
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Utilization of contraceptives remains low in several countries in sub-Saharan Africa despite evidence of its benefits. Several factors are associated with contraceptive use. However, little is known about the association between women's decision-making capacity and the utilization of contraceptives in Mali. This study sought to determine the effect of women's household decision-making power on contraceptive use in Mali. METHODS: This study involved a cross-sectional analysis of data from the 2018 Mali Demographic and Health Survey. A total of 7893 married women were included in the final analysis. A binary logistic regression analysis was conducted with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Contraceptive use among married women in Mali was 17.1%. The odds of using contraceptives were higher among women with joint decision-making with their husbands on how to spend respondent's earnings [aOR = 1.79; 95% CI = 1.12, 2.85], joint decision-making with their husbands on what to do with their husband's earnings [aOR = 1.43; 95% CI = 1.12, 1.83], and joint decision-making with husband on large household purchases [aOR = 1.32; 95% CI = 1.10, 1.59]. Deciding alone on a visit to family or relatives was associated with lower odds of contraceptive use [AOR = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.58, 0.89]. CONCLUSION: The study has revealed that joint household decision-making is positively associated with contraceptive use. Therefore, to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3, the ministry for the advancement of women, children and families and related stakeholders must unearth strategies to empower women in joint decision-making and encourage men's involvement in contraceptive decision-making.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".