ArticlePloS one2025
How have unintended pregnancies and contraceptive use among adolescent girls and young women changed in Uganda? Evidence from the 2014 and 2019 PMA national surveys.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acceptability and utilization of modern contraceptives and associated factors among childbearing-aged women in Northern Ghana: a cross-sectional study.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2025Article
- Bridging Participation Gaps: A Community-Led Inception for Integrating Comprehensive Adolescent-Friendly Family Planning and Post-Abortion Care (CAFFP-PAC) into Primary Healthcare Facilities in Northern Uganda.Open access journal of contraception · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unintended pregnancies among adolescent girls and young women (AGYW), and any pregnancy among adolescent girls are still a challenge, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa and Uganda. We assess prevalence of unintended pregnancy in Uganda, associated factors and contraceptive use following unintended pregnancy among adolescent girls and young women in 2014 and 2019 in Uganda. Data are from the 2014 and 2019 performance monitoring for action (PMA) surveys. There were 1,479 AGYW reporting ever/ or current pregnancy in the two surveys, 780 in 2014 and 699 in 2019. Data included socio-demographics and pregnancy intendedness. Descriptive analyses were conducted stratified by adolescent girls and young women and compared between surveys. The percent of unintended pregnancies was determined as the number of AGYW reporting unintended pregnancy divided by eligible participants. A weighted comparison of the prevalence of unintended pregnancies was made between the surveys, and statistical significance determined at a 5% type-1 error rate. All analyses were conducted with Stata version15 using svy surveyset methodology accounting for complex survey design. Relative to 2014, the 2019 survey showed a significant reduction in percent of AGYW reporting ever pregnant or given birth, 60% to 49%, p = 0.007; a decline in unintended pregnancy among adolescent girls, 52% to 42%, p = 0.049, and among young women with secondary education, 36% to 13%, p = 0.001. Conversely, the 2019 survey showed significant increase in contraception among those ever pregnant, 26% to 40%, p < 0.001; higher in young women (30% to 47%, p = 0.001) compared to adolescent girls (16% to 25%, p = 0.005). The commonest contraceptive methods were short-acting at both surveys, while the long-acting methods significantly increased among young women (20% to 35%, p = 0.003). The decline in unintended pregnancies was consistent with increased use of contraceptive methods. Although we observed a significant decline in unintended pregnancy among adolescent girls, the proportion reporting unintended pregnancy remains high.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.