↓ Skip to main content

Factors influencing use of long-acting versus short-acting contraceptive methods among reproductive-age women in a resource-limited setting

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Women's Health, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
501 Mendeley
Title
Factors influencing use of long-acting versus short-acting contraceptive methods among reproductive-age women in a resource-limited setting
Published in
BMC Women's Health, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12905-017-0382-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leevan Tibaijuka, Robert Odongo, Emma Welikhe, Wilber Mukisa, Lilian Kugonza, Imelda Busingye, Phelomena Nabukalu, Joseph Ngonzi, Stephen B. Asiimwe, Francis Bajunirwe

Abstract

Unplanned pregnancy remains a common problem in many resource-limited settings, mostly due to limited access to modern family planning (FP) services. In particular, use of the more effective long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods (i.e., intrauterine devices and hormonal implants) remains low compared to the short-acting methods (i.e., condoms, hormonal pills, injectable hormones, and spermicides). Among reproductive-age women attending FP and antenatal care clinics in Uganda, we assessed perceptions and practices regarding the use of modern contraceptive methods. We specifically aimed to evaluate factors influencing method selection. We performed a mixed-methods cross-sectional study, in which we administered structured interviews to 180 clients, and conducted 4 focus group discussions (FGDs) with 36 clients and 8 in-depth personal qualitative interviews with health service providers. We summarized quantitative data and performed latent content analysis on transcripts from the FGDs and qualitative interviews. The prevalence of ever use for LARC methods was 23%. Method characteristics (e.g., client control) appeared to drive method selection more often than structural factors (such as method availability) or individual client characteristics (such as knowledge and perceptions). The most common reasons for choosing LARC methods were: longer protection; better child-spacing; and effectiveness. The most common reasons for not choosing LARC methods included requiring a client-controlled method and desiring to conceive in the near future. The most common reasons for choosing short-acting methods were ease of access; lower cost; privacy; perceived fewer side effects; and freedom to stop using a method without involving the health provider. The personal characteristics of clients, which appeared to be important were client knowledge and number of children. The structural factor which appeared to be important was method availability. Our results suggest that interventions to improve uptake of LARC among reproductive age women in this setting should consider: incorporating desired method-characteristics into LARC methods; targeted promotion and supply of LARC; and increased counselling, sensitization, and education.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 501 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 501 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 96 19%
Student > Bachelor 51 10%
Researcher 44 9%
Student > Postgraduate 31 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 5%
Other 62 12%
Unknown 194 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 101 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 82 16%
Social Sciences 35 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 2%
Other 55 11%
Unknown 209 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,453,139
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from BMC Women's Health
#1,279
of 1,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,982
of 308,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Women's Health
#15
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,840 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,980 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.