MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414491468 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-094628

Prevalence of postpartum family planning uptake and its association with spousal discussion, joint decision-making and partner approval: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· article· en· W4414491468 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jannat Khurram, Abhishek Lal, Anum Rahim, Shiyam Sunder Tikmani

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssociation (psychology)Family planningEpidemiologyJoint (building)Postpartum periodPublic healthMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review examined the prevalence of postpartum family planning (PPFP) uptake and its association with spousal discussion and husband's support. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed (NLM), Scopus (Elsevier), Web of Science (Clarivate) and Cochrane Library (Wiley). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The review included primary observational studies published in English between January 2014 and March 2024. Eligible studies reported prevalence and association between spousal discussion, support, approval or contraceptive use by the husband in PPFP within 12 months of childbirth. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened the articles, performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus. Random-effects meta-analysis estimated pooled prevalence, and pooled ORs of log odds were reported for the association between spousal discussion and partner approval and PPFP uptake. RESULTS: Six cross-sectional studies involving 2856 postpartum women were included. The pooled prevalence of PPFP uptake was 35% (95% CI 19% to 52%). Meta-analysis showed that spousal discussion was associated with PPFP uptake (log OR=1.39 (95% CI 0.65 to 2.13), however, partner's approval was not associated with PPFP uptake (log OR=1.49, 95% CI -0.08 to 3.06). Two studies assessed partner support, with one reporting a significant association (log OR: 1.45); joint decision-making was assessed in two studies but showed no significant association with PPFP. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the overall prevalence of PPFP uptake is low. Spousal discussion plays a critical role in enhancing PPFP uptake. These findings highlight the need for policy initiatives and programmatic interventions that promote couple communication for PPFP decision-making to improve reproductive health outcomes in low-middle-income countries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024505801.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207