Trends in prevalence of unmet need for family planning in India: patterns of change across 36 States and Union Territories, 1993–2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eliminating unmet need for family planning by 2030 is a global priority for ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages. We estimate the sub-national trends in prevalence of unmet need for family planning over 30 years in India and study differences based on socio-economic and demographic factors. METHODS: We used data from five National Family Health Surveys (NFHS) conducted between 1993 to 2021 for the 36 states/Union Territories (UTs) of India. The study population included women of ages 15-49 years who were married or in a union at the time of the survey. The outcome was unmet need for family planning which captures the prevalence of fecund and sexually active women not using contraception, who want to delay or limit childbearing. We calculated the standardized absolute change to estimate the change in prevalence on an annual basis across all states/UTs. We examined the patterning of prevalence of across demographic and socioeconomic characteristics and estimated the headcount of women with unmet need in 2021. RESULTS: The prevalence of unmet need in India decreased from 20·6% (95% CI: 20·1- 21·2%) in 1993, to 9·4% (95% CI: 9·3-9·6%) in 2021. Median unmet need prevalence across states/UTs decreased from 17·80% in 1993 to 8·95% in 2021. The north-eastern states of Meghalaya (26·9%, 95% CI: 25·3-28·6%) and Mizoram (18·9%, 95% CI: 17·2-20·6%), followed by the northern states of Bihar (13·6%, 95% CI: 13·1-14·1%) and Uttar Pradesh (12·9%, 95% CI: 12·5-13·2%), had the highest unmet need prevalence in 2021. As of 2021, the estimated number of women with an unmet need for family planning was 24,194,428. Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra, and West Bengal accounted for half of this headcount. Women of ages 15-19 and those belonging the poorest wealth quintile had a relatively high prevalence of unmet need in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The existing initiatives under the National Family Planning Programme should be strengthened, and new policies should be developed with a focus on states/UTs with high prevalence, to ensure unmet need for family planning is eliminated by 2030.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".