Evaluation of the Factors that Affect Family Planning Methods in Clients Attending Maternal Child Health Services at Kyabugimbi Health Centre IV, Bushenyi District, Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family planning can help reduce maternal mortality by reducing the number of pregnancies, the number of abortions, and the proportion of births at high risk in Bushenyi District. It has been estimated that meeting women’s need for modern contraceptive use would prevent about one quarter to one third of all maternal deaths. This study was aimed at assessing the factors affecting utilization of family planning methods among clients attending child health (MCH) Clinic at Kyabugimbi health Centre IV. A cross-sectional study design was used. According to this study, most of the respondents, were aged 25-34(48%), had no formal education (60%), married(45%) by marital status, peasants (65%) by occupation, while by religion, majority were protestants (41%). Majority (87%) had ever heard about family planning while the minority (13%) had never. The sources of information were health workers (36%), 30% radio and 20% from friends. 38% of the clients reported to be using at least one method of family planning while the majority (56%) was not. Majority of participants reported to be using injecta-plan (14%), pill-plan (9%), condoms (6%), IUDs (4%) and minority (2%) calendar and 6% reported to be using other methods not listed above. This study revealed that majority of the clients reported not to utilize family planning services because they feared side effects (83%), 75% could not afford to travel long distance to the health facility, 67% reported that their religions were against the use of family planning methods while 41% reported that they were not effective in preventing pregnancy. Holding family planning campaigns, educating these clients about the benefits of family planning as well as giving them detailed information in order to put an end to the misconceptions and false beliefs they have about family planning services. More research should be carried on bigger populations for instance referral hospitals to capture larger sample sizes and urban settings. Keywords: Family planning, maternal mortality, abortions, contraceptives.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".