MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401268888 · doi:10.23880/phoa-16000288

Knowledge, Attitude and Factors Limiting Family Planning Practices among Women of Child Bearing Age in the Molyko Health Area-Buea, Cameroon

2024· article· en· W4401268888 on OpenAlexaff
Eta VEA, Eyere AL, Lui gi

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health Open Access · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChild bearingLimitingFamily planningPsychologySocioeconomicsEnvironmental healthMedicineEngineeringSociologyPopulationResearch methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The slow increase in the proportion of contraceptive use despite the availability of a wide range of contraceptive methods accounts for the continuous unacceptably high Maternal Mortality Rates (MMR) in Cameroon. The birth of babies at intervals less than two years also contributes to high MMR. Some factors have been found to influence the practice of family planning. Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and attitude of women of child-bearing age (WOCBA) towards family planning and to identify factors that limit family planning practices in the Molyko Health Area (MHA). Methods: A community-based cross-sectional study design was used to investigate knowledge and attitude towards family planning and identify factors that limit family planning practices. Purposive and simple random sampling techniques were used to select the study area and sites (quarters) respectively. The purposive sampling method was employed to select the study area, which was the MHA while the simple random sampling technique was used to select seven out of the 12 quarters in the MHA. The participants were enrolled from the seven quarters in the MHA. Participants were made up of 176 WOCBA (15-49years) who were enrolled by purposive and consecutive convenient sampling methods; two participants per household in the selected quarters. Only participants who gave their consent to participate in the study were included. Data was collected from May to June 2022 using a semi-structured pretested questionnaire. Based on the number of questions for each section, participants who scored 50% and more for the section on knowledge were said to be knowledgeable (good knowledge) while those who scored below 50% had poor knowledge (not knowledgeable). Similarly, those who scored 50% and above for the section on attitude were said to have positive (good) attitude while those who scored below 50% had negative (poor) attitude. Data collected was entered into Microsoft excel and analysed using SPSS version 26.0l. Descriptive statistic was used to describe study participants. Chi-square test was used to determine association between variables. Results: Out of the 176 participants, 10(5.7%) were disabled. Majority 106(62%) of the study participants had poor knowledge on family planning. Also, 150(87.7%) had poor attitude towards family planning. Most 94(55.5%) participants mentioned having used family planning services; among them, 20 (33.3%) reported that the non-supportive partner influenced their practices, 13(21.7%) said they stopped taking contraceptives due to non-effectiveness and 5(8.3%) said they had a fear of being judged. There was no association between marital status and knowledge level of the participants; however, there was an association between the level of knowledge and family planning practices (P=0.001). Conclusion: Most of the participants had poor knowledge and poor attitude towards family planning, which needs attention. The major factors that limit family planning practices were the lack of a supportive partner and fear of side effects. Adequate information about family planning services needs to be disseminated.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.265 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Health Open AccessSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207