MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409001013 · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2024-016573

Unintended pregnancy and gender inequality worldwide: an ecological analysis

2025· review· en· W4409001013 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gilda Sedgh, Jonathan Bearak

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Global Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChildren's Investment Fund FoundationGlobal Affairs CanadaBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsUnintended pregnancyUnintended consequencesEducational attainmentPregnancyInequalityDemographyPsychologyEconomicsFamily planningPopulationPolitical scienceSociologyEconomic growthBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unintended pregnancy compromises many women's and girls' ability to pursue the lives that they want. The conditional unintended pregnancy rate (CUPR) is a measure of unintended pregnancy among women who wish to avoid getting pregnant. Using the CUPR, we explore the relationship between gender inequality and unintended pregnancy across 132 countries. We used gender inequality indicators from the UNDP Human Development Report and estimates of the incidence of unintended pregnancy published by the Guttmacher Institute and WHO. We regressed the CUPR on several measures of gender inequality using least squares with a percentile bootstrap to account for sampling error and the additional uncertainty in the model-based unintended pregnancy estimates. We find that unintended pregnancy is positively correlated with multiple composite measures of gender inequality, even after controlling for countries' levels of economic development. Of the components of gender inequality, gender disparities in educational attainment were most strongly correlated with unintended pregnancy in multivariable regressions. We also find that female educational attainment is a stronger predictor of the CUPR than male educational attainment. Analyses with the standard unintended pregnancy rate, a measure that does not take into account differences across settings in the proportion of women who wish to avoid getting pregnant, obscured the strength of the observed relationships. Further exploration of the factors underlying this relationship can inform policies to improve the quality of women's lives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Global HealthSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207