MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317459790 · doi:10.2196/43494

Community and Health Care Provider Perspectives on Barriers to and Enablers of Family Planning Use in Rural Sindh, Pakistan: Qualitative Exploratory Study

2023· article· en· W4317459790 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Zahid Memon, Abeer Mian, Sophie Reale, Rachael Spencer, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Hora Soltani

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGlobal Affairs CanadaUnited Nations Population Fund
KeywordsQualitative researchExploratory researchNursingHealth careBusinessMedicineSociologyEconomic growthSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Unmet need for family planning in Pakistan is high, with 17% of all married women wanting to avoid or delay pregnancy. However, they cannot owing to a lack of access to modern contraception and sociocultural hindrances. With the modern contraceptive prevalence rate stagnant at approximately 25% over the last 5 years, it is important to explore barriers and enablers to modern contraception uptake to reduce maternal and child mortality and improve reproductive health outcomes for young girls and women. OBJECTIVE: A formative research approach was taken to explore community member and health care provider perspectives on access to and use of family planning methods in 2 rural districts of Sindh, Pakistan. The broader goal of this study was to provide evidence to design and implement a socioculturally appropriate family planning intervention within the existing service delivery platforms to increase modern contraceptive uptake in the context of rural Sindh. METHODS: A qualitative exploratory design was used. Between October 2020 and December 2020, 11 focus group discussions and 11 in-depth interviews were conducted. Focus group discussions were held with men and women from the community, including adolescents, to build an understanding of community beliefs and concepts regarding modern contraceptive methods. In-depth interviews were conducted with health care workers and explored intersections between family planning and reproductive health service delivery at the facility and outreach levels. RESULTS: The findings revealed that limited financial autonomy, restricted women's mobility, discriminatory gender norms, and cultural practices left women with little opportunity for independent decision-making on the use of modern contraceptive methods. Furthermore, facility-level and supply-side barriers, including frequent stock-outs of modern contraceptives combined with a lack of capacity of health workers to provide quality family planning services and counseling, played an important role in demotivating women from seeking services. In addition, a lack of integration of family planning with maternal and child health service delivery at the health system level was emphasized as a major missed opportunity for contraceptive uptake. Several demand-side barriers to family planning uptake were also highlighted. These included husbands' or in-laws' disapproval, social stigma, and perceived fear of side effects regarding modern family planning method use. More importantly, a lack of adolescent-friendly reproductive health services and spaces for counseling was identified as a critical intervention area. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides qualitative evidence on issues related to the effectiveness of family planning interventions, specifically in the context of rural Sindh. The findings emphasize the need to design socioculturally appropriate and health system-relevant family planning interventions-the effectiveness of which can be improved through their integration with maternal and child health service delivery mechanisms, consistent service provision, and opportunities for the capacity building of the health care workforce. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/35291.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.200
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207