Oral Contraceptives: Analyzing Effectiveness and Utilization Challenges to Improve Reproductive Health Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Oral contraceptives (OCs) are widely used for preventing unintended pregnancies and offering various reproductive health benefits. However, their utilization is influenced by numerous factors, including access, education, and cultural beliefs. This meta-analysis aims to systematically review studies from 2019 to 2023 focusing on OC utilization patterns and effectiveness. Methods: A comprehensive search across PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar identified 50 relevant articles, from which nine studies were selected based on predefined criteria. Data extraction included demographic factors, adherence rates, side effects, access to OCs, and pregnancy outcomes. Quality assessments were performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, followed by statistical analysis using random-effects models. Results: The analysis revealed a pregnancy rate as low as 0.3% among perfect OC users, showcasing their high effectiveness. However, significant barriers persist, including poor adherence, discontinuation due to side effects, and disparities in access, particularly in low-income regions. Cultural perceptions and insufficient education further hinder optimal OC utilization. Conclusion: While OCs represent a reliable contraceptive method with substantial health benefits, ongoing challenges impede their optimal use. A multifaceted approach focusing on improved education, enhanced healthcare provider counseling, and targeted access initiatives is essential to increase OC utilization and reproductive health outcomes globally. Addressing these challenges will empower individuals to make informed family planning decisions, ultimately reducing unintended pregnancies and enhancing quality of life.
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 | 0.039 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".