ArticleContraception and reproductive medicine2025
Acceptability and utilization of modern contraceptives and associated factors among childbearing-aged women in Northern Ghana: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Contraception and reproductive medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlobally, the use of modern contraceptives has increased, yet progress remains slow in Sub-Saharan Africa, particularly among reproductive-aged women. In Ghana, acceptance of family planning is influenced by personal, traditional, and socio-cultural factors. This study aimed to identify predictors of modern contraceptive acceptability and utilization among women of reproductive age attending selected health facilities in Northern Ghana, to inform policies and strategies for improving uptake.
methodsA facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted from January to April 2023 among 421 women aged 15-49 years, recruited through systematic random sampling across three public health facilities in the Tamale Metropolis. Data were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression in IBM SPSS version 25, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsWhile acceptability of modern contraceptives was relatively high (75.3%), actual utilization was lower (40.1%). More than half (57%) reported experiencing contraceptive failure. Key determinants of contraceptive utilization included age (21-30 years: AOR = 6.82, 95% CI: 1.25-37.09; 31-40 years: AOR = 10.91, 95% CI: 1.90-62.66), marital status (AOR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.05-0.74), paternal education (basic: AOR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.06-3.82; secondary: AOR = 2.86, 95% CI: 1.43-5.70), household wealth (medium: AOR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.18-3.16; rich: AOR = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.34-3.61), and health worker attitudes (AOR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.14-0.36). Acceptability was predicted by occupation (civil servant: AOR = 4.47, 95% CI: 1.50-13.29; farmer: AOR = 2.14, 95% CI: 1.00-4.55), husband's number of wives (AOR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.10-0.29), household wealth (rich: AOR = 2.11, 95% CI: 1.21-3.67), source of information (health workers: AOR = 2.38, 95% CI: 1.35-4.20), and contraceptive knowledge (AOR = 3.67, 95% CI: 2.23-6.05).
conclusionsDespite high acceptability, modern contraceptive use among women in Northern Ghana remains low. Utilization was shaped by demographic, socioeconomic, and provider-related factors, while acceptability was driven by occupation, knowledge, and exposure to health worker information. Targeted interventions should engage less educated, poorer, and married women, while also involving men in family planning decisions. Strengthening community-based sensitization and empowering women in reproductive health decision-making are crucial for inclusive and sustainable improvements in contraceptive uptake and for meeting global reproductive health goals.
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.