The influence of personal, family and community and religious and cultural factors on couples’ family planning decisions in Qatar and Islamic and/or Arabic societies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Family planning is important to foster maternity, infancy, and healthy children. A key goal in maternal child health is to improve the use of antenatal and postnatal services in a community. Both clinical practice and empirical literature indicate that many factors influence the use of family planning services. The Qatar National Health Strategy and Primary Health Care Corporation’s goals are to deliver healthcare that more effectively empowers patients and families in making decisions about their health and wellness. Couples who have an in-depth understanding and knowledge of the impact of family planning on maternal child health are positioned to make fully informed decisions. Health providers’ and educators’ knowledge of family planning’s impact is key in supporting families’ decisions regarding family planning. Methods: Whittemore and Knafl’s framework was used to guide this integrative literature review. The search was conducted using five databases for peer-reviewed articles published between 2011 and 2022 as well as inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. Data was analyzed using a thematic framework. The socio-ecological model was adapted and modified for data synthesis. Results: A couple’s participation in family planning is influenced by personal characteristics (knowledge, education, income), family and community (husband) as well as religion and culture. The influence of religion and husbands are paramount in decisions about family planning. Conclusions: Understanding the factors that influence family planning decisions is essential to make informed decisions and provide effective interventions. Healthcare providers and program planners should consider these factors when developing strategies to improve couples’ access to and utilization of family planning. The development and implementation of such strategies will require the input of all stakeholders, the inclusion of champions, and attention to the local context as well as more broadly to Islamic and Arabic societies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".