Utilization of family planning and associated factors among women with disabilities in ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Persons with disabilities have a right to make their own choices about their bodies, health, and lives, especially regarding their sexual and reproductive health. But they may experience more challenges than women without disabilities in having their reproductive health needs met. So there is an urgent need to scale up disability inclusion in all levels of the health system including family planning. Therefore, the objective of this study was to estimate the pooled prevalence of Family Planning Utilization and Associated Factors among Women with Disabilities in Ethiopia. METHODOLOGY: Studies were gathered from Pub Med/MEDLINE (681), Google Scholar (426), African Journal of Online (AJOL) (36), CINAHL (211), HINARI (191), Scopus (86), Science Direct (62), Excerpta Medica database (EMBA, SE) (113), DOAJ (38), Web of Science (26), Google (271), and other organization's websites (2) using a combination of search terms and Boolean operators. The modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cross-sectional research was used by three authors to independently assess the quality of each study. For statistical analysis, STATATM Version 11 software was employed. For the meta-analysis, the random-effects (Der Simonian and Laird) technique was applied. The heterogeneity test was performed using I-squared (I2) statistics. A one-out sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULT: A total of 7 articles with 2787 participants were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of family planning utilization among Women with Disabilities was 29.6% (95% CI: 22.3, 36.8); I2 = 94.6%). Women who were in marital union (p<0.001) and who had a discussion with their husbands (p = 0.007) were factors significantly associated with the utilization of family planning among women with disabilities. CONCLUSION: The finding of this study showed that utilization of family planning among women with disability is relatively lower than the Ethiopian Demographic Health Survey 2019. Therefore, the discussions with the partner and their engagement in decisions to use family planning are critical to increase its use.
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 | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".