Contraceptive use and associated factors among female university students in Rwanda: A cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of modern contraceptive use and associated factors among female university students at university of Rwanda. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study on the prevalence of modern contraception utilization and associated factors among female university students at the University of Rwanda. Data were collected prospectively using a structured questionnaire. We used STATA version 13 to analyze the data. Chi-squared test, Fisher exact test, and multivariate regression analysis were performed as appropriate. A P value less than 0.05 and odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to present the results significance. RESULTS: Among 385 female students included in the study, 34% (131/385) were using modern contraceptive methods. Being married (AOR 2.6, 95% CI: 1.05-7.10) and having a history of pregnancy (AOR 3.6, 95% CI: 1.53-8.45) were associated with modern contraceptive use. Address, educational level, and age were not associated with contraceptive use. CONCLUSION: In this study, only one in three female university students were using modern contraception, which is lower than reports from other African countries. This implies there is a high need for advocacy on contraception use among university students in Rwanda.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".