Women’s empowerment and life stage: assessing intersectional differences in contraceptive method mix in sub-Saharan Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Women’s empowerment positively impacts family planning in sub-Saharan Africa, but little is known about its relationship with contraceptive method mix. Considering that contraceptive needs vary across life stages, we aimed to explore the intersectional differences in contraceptive method mix according to age and level of empowerment in sub-Saharan Africa. Methods We analyzed data from Demographic and Health Surveys conducted from 2015 to 2022 across 28 countries in West & Central and Eastern & Southern Africa. Within each region, we calculated pooled estimates of demand for family planning satisfied by any method (DFPS) and contraceptive method mix, stratifying by women’s age and empowerment level according to the SWPER Global index. Results Our sample included 138,374 married women of reproductive age. Across both regions, DFPS increased with empowerment, especially among women older than 19. Among adolescents, a substantial increase was only identified in terms of decision-making. Contraceptive method mix was skewed towards injectables and implants, but their shares dropped as empowerment increased. This trend appeared across all age groups and empowerment domains, with the largest declines observed for social independence. High-empowered women had a more diversified method mix, with adolescents and young women showing increased use of condoms, pills, and fertility-awareness methods, while women over 34 relied more on IUDs and sterilization. Conclusion Our findings reveal that age, empowerment, and contraceptive method mix intersect in diverse ways. Tailoring family planning policies and counseling while addressing empowerment drivers could enhance informed contraceptive choices and better meet women’s reproductive health goals.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".