Evidence mapPaperPMID 40280601Full record

SynthesisBMJ global health2025

Family planning and nutrition: systematic review of the effects of family planning on nutritional status of adolescent girls and women of reproductive age.

Ilana Rachel Cliffer, Cara Yelverton, Jingwen Dong, Matthew Dwumah-Agyen, Elisabetta Ferrero, Uttara Partap, Iqbal Shah, Wafaie Fawzi

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Ilana Rachel ClifferDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA icliffer@hsph.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0740-787X
Cara YelvertonDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jingwen DongDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Matthew Dwumah-AgyenDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Elisabetta FerreroDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Uttara PartapDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2531-1804
Iqbal ShahDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8850-4374
Wafaie FawziDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionContraceptive use may affect women's nutritional status through birth spacing, parity, age at first birth, menstruation changes, and increased income. To inform the integration of family planning with nutrition interventions, we synthesised evidence linking the use of family planning to nutritional outcomes in women of reproductive age (15-49 years) and adolescents (10-19 years) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs, non-randomised trials and cohort studies published from 2000 onwards. Family planning exposure included any contraception type with no restrictions by comparison arms. Outcomes were maternal anthropometry and iron-status indicators. Random effects meta-analyses were done for comparisons with a minimum of three studies sharing intervention arms, outcomes and study design. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed.

resultsOf 20 097 publications, 99 were eligible for inclusion, covering 29 outcomes and 23 interventions (eg, oral contraception, intrauterine devices (IUD)). In 28 instances, at least three studies matched on intervention arms, outcomes and study design. Meta-analysis of RCTs showed that users of hormonal IUDs had significantly higher haemoglobin than oral contraceptive users (four studies; mean difference=1.25 g/dL; 95% CI: 0.38, 2.12; certainty=very low). Users of any hormonal contraceptive had a small reduction in body mass index (BMI) compared with non-contraceptive controls (seven studies; mean difference=-0.28 kg/m2; 95% CI: -0.52 to -0.04; certainty=low); however, most samples were women with polycystic ovarian syndrome. Other relationships were very uncertain and not statistically significant.

conclusionEvidence is weak suggesting that hormonal IUDs increase haemoglobin compared with oral contraceptives and that any hormonal contraceptive use reduces BMI. Hormonal IUDs likely limit blood loss from menstruation, allowing for higher haemoglobin than oral contraceptives. Mechanisms for lower BMI after hormonal contraceptive use remain unclear. More robust evidence is necessary to guide policy. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: This review was registered prospectively with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review (PROSPERO ID: CD42023400069).

Indexed as

ContraceptionFamily Planning ServicesNutritional StatusAdolescentAdultChildDeveloping CountriesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedYoung AdultAnaemiaGlobal HealthHealth policyNutritionSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40280601
PMCPMC12184413

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.