Use of contraceptives, empowerment and agency of adolescent girls and young women: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The evidence on adolescent empowerment, which involves access to personal and material resources for reproductive autonomy and economic equity, is limited. This systematic review assesses the use of contraceptives in empowering and strengthening the agency and vice versa among adolescents and young women. METHODS: We ran the searches in six electronic databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Campbell Library, MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Web of Science. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using ROBINS-I and ROB-II tools as appropriate. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4. RESULTS: Forty studies that assessed the impact of empowerment on contraceptive use were included. Of these, 14 were non-randomised studies for intervention (NRSIs), and the remaining 26 were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The results from RCTs show a significant effect of the sexual and reproductive health empowerment in increasing ever use of contraception (RR 1.22; 95% CI 1.02, 1.45; n=9; I²=77%; GRADE: Very Low), and insignificant effect on unprotected sex (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.74, 1.26; n=5; I²=86%; GRADE: Very Low) and adolescent pregnancy (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.61, 1.87; n=3; I²=36%; GRADE: Very Low). None of the studies assessed impact of contraceptive use on empowerment. CONCLUSIONS: Empowerment of adolescents and young women certainly improves contraceptive use in the immediate or short-term period. However, more robust studies with low risk of bias, longer-term outcomes, and impact of contraceptive use on empowerment and agency-strengthening are required. To increase contraceptive use uptake, tailored policies and delivery platforms are necessary for youth in low- and middle-income countries.
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 | 0.022 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".