↓ Skip to main content

Family planning use and fertility desires among women living with HIV in Kenya

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Family planning use and fertility desires among women living with HIV in Kenya
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2218-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

James Kimani, Charlotte Warren, Timothy Abuya, Richard Mutemwa, on behalf of the Integra Initiative, Susannah Mayhew, Ian Askew

Abstract

Enabling women living with HIV to effectively plan whether and when to become pregnant is an essential right; effective prevention of unintended pregnancies is also critical to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality as well as vertical transmission of HIV. The objective of this study is to examine the use of family planning (FP) services by HIV-positive and HIV-negative women in Kenya and their ability to achieve their fertility desires. Data are derived from a random sample of women seeking family planning services in public health facilities in Kenya who had declared their HIV status (1887 at baseline and 1224 at endline) and who participated in a longitudinal study (the INTEGRA Initiative) that measured the benefits/costs of integrating HIV and sexual/reproductive health services in public health facilities. The dependent variables were FP use in the last 12 months and fertility desires (whether a woman wants more children or not). The key independent variable was HIV status (positive and negative). Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to describe the women's characteristics and to examine the relationship between FP use, fertility desires and HIV status. At baseline, 13 % of the women sampled were HIV-positive. A slightly higher proportion of HIV-positive women were significantly associated with the use of FP in the last 12 months and dual use of FP compared to HIV-negative women. Regardless of HIV status, short-acting contraceptives were the most commonly used FP methods. A higher proportion of HIV-positive women were more likely to be associated with unintended (both mistimed and unwanted) pregnancies and a desire not to have more children. After adjusting for confounding factors, the multivariate results showed that HIV-positive women were significantly more likely to be associated with dual use of FP (OR = 3.2; p < 0.05). Type of health facility, marital status and household wealth status were factors associated with FP use. Factors associated with fertility desires were age, education level and household wealth status. The findings highlight important gaps related to utilization of FP among WLHIV. Despite having a greater likelihood of reported use of FP, HIV-positive women were more likely to have had an unintended pregnancy compared to HIV-negative women. This calls for need to strengthen family planning services for WLHIV to ensure they have better access to a wide range of FP methods. There is need to encourage the use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) to reduce the risk of unintended pregnancy and prevention of vertical transmission of HIV. However, such policies should be based on respect for women's right to informed reproductive choice in the context of HIV/AIDS. NCT01694862.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 248 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 57 23%
Researcher 30 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 9%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Student > Postgraduate 19 8%
Other 32 13%
Unknown 68 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 14%
Social Sciences 32 13%
Psychology 8 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Other 27 11%
Unknown 67 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 October 2015.
All research outputs
#15,347,611
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,344
of 14,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,364
of 272,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#209
of 286 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,871 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 286 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.