SynthesisBMJ open2025
Prevalence of postpartum family planning uptake and its association with spousal discussion, joint decision-making and partner approval: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Determinants of family planning use among married women of reproductive age in south Asia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2026Article
- Initiation of immediate postpartum family planning and its determinants among women delivering in health facilities: a cross-sectional study.Reproductive health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review examined the prevalence of postpartum family planning (PPFP) uptake and its association with spousal discussion and husband's support.
designSystematic 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.
resultsSix 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.
conclusionsIn 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.
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.