Contraception use among refugee and internally displaced women in Nigeria: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Nigeria, which has a large population of displaced women, lacks a current review of literature on the use of modern contraception in this group. This scoping review study aimed to map the literature on contraception use among women of reproductive age (15-49 years) living in refugee and IDP camps in Nigeria in the last five years. Methods: A literature search was conducted for full-text peer-reviewed original research articles published in English, which included women of reproductive age in refugee and internally displaced camps over the last five years. The literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and grey literature. Results: Four studies that met the eligibility criteria were selected for the review- one survey, two qualitative studies, and a mixed-methods study. Findings suggest the prevalence of knowledge of modern contraception was reported as 34%, while knowledge of sources of contraception was reported at 24% and 12%. The use of modern contraception was reported at 9% and 21.8%. Underutilization of contraceptives is related to poor knowledge, poor access to health facilities and contraceptives, and misconceptions about contraception. Discussion: The prevalence of knowledge and utilization of modern contraception was low due to factors such as poverty and lack of resources, poor decision-making, and child marriage. Condoms were the most used form of contraception due to their dual purpose. As well, the lack of knowledge about contraception sources was a significant barrier to access. Conclusion: The underutilization of contraception reported calls for health intervention through the provision of health infrastructure including contraceptives for displaced women in Nigeria. More research is recommended on the displaced women in Nigeria.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".