Abstract
Summary Background
Meeting the contraceptive needs of women of reproductive age is beneficial for the health of women and children, and the economic and social empowerment of women. Higher rates of contraceptive coverage have been linked to the availability of a more diverse range of contraceptive methods. We present estimates of the contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR), modern contraceptive prevalence rate (mCPR), demand satisfied, and the method of contraception used for both partnered and unpartnered women for 5-year age groups in 204 countries and territories between 1970 and 2019.
MethodsWe used 1162 population-based surveys capturing contraceptive use among women between 1970 and 2019, in which women of reproductive age (15–49 years) self-reported their, or their partner's, current use of contraception for family planning purposes. Spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression was used to generate estimates of the CPR, mCPR, demand satisfied, and method mix by age and marital status. We assessed how age-specific mCPR and demand satisfied changed with the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a measure of social and economic development, using the meta-regression Bayesian, regularised, trimmed method from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study.
FindingsIn 2019, 162·9 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 155·6–170·2) women had unmet need for contraception, of whom 29·3% (27·9–30·6) resided in sub-Saharan Africa and 27·2% (24·4–30·3) resided in south Asia. Women aged 15–19 years (64·8% [62·9–66·7]) and 20–24 years (71·9% [68·9–74·2]) had the lowest rates of demand satisfied, with 43·2 million (95% UI 39·3–48·0) women aged 15–24 years with unmet need in 2019. The mCPR and demand satisfied among women aged 15–19 years were substantially lower than among women aged 20–49 years at SDI values below 60 (on a 0–100 scale), but began to equalise as SDI increased above 60. Between 1970 and 2019, the global mCPR increased by 20·1 percentage points (95% UI 18·7–21·6). During this time, traditional methods declined as a proportion of all contraceptive methods, whereas the use of implants, injections, female sterilisation, and condoms increased. Method mix differs substantially depending on age and geography, with the share of female sterilisation increasing with age and comprising more than 50% of methods in use in south Asia. In 28 countries, one method was used by more than 50% of users in 2019.
InterpretationThe dominance of one contraceptive method in some locations raises the question of whether family planning policies should aim to expand method mix or invest in making existing methods more accessible. Lower rates of demand satisfied among women aged 15–24 years are also concerning because unintended pregnancies before age 25 years can forestall or eliminate education and employment opportunities that lead to social and economic empowerment. Policy makers should strive to tailor family planning programmes to the preferences of the groups with the most need, while maintaining the programmes used by existing users.
FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Health Metrics Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
2 Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
3 Centre for Global Child Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Centre of Excellence in Women and Child Health, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan
4 Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Health Metrics Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Swedish Family Medicine, First Hill, Seattle, WA, USA