Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies related to ‘triggering infertility’

From: A rapid scoping review of fear of infertility in Africa

Author/s
Region, Country
Methods of data collection
Participants and Recruitment
Focus of study
Age (years)
a) Qualitative descriptive part of a mixed methods study
1.Dalaba et al. 2016 [13]
Kassena-Nankana, Ghana
Focus groups (n = 16) with men and women (n = ns) from community-based health planning & services
Interviews with community Chiefs and Elders (n = 8)
Hormonal contraceptives
> 35 or < 35
2. Morse et al. 2012 [14]
Kampala, Uganda
Focus groups (n = 10) with pregnant women (n = 46) presenting for prenatal care at local hospital General contraception and FP
< 20 (n = 7) / 21–25 (n = 19)
26–30 (n = 11) / > 30 (n = 9)
3. Capurchande et al. 2016 [15]
Ndlavela & Boane, Mozambique
Focus groups (n = 4); interviews (n = 16), informal conservations (n = 4); Observations with adolescents and young adults (F: n = 23, M: n = 19) selected from respondents to wider community survey General contraceptive methods
Range 15–24
4. Gebremariam and Addissie 2014 [16]
Adigrat town & Tigray, Ethiopia
Focus groups (n = 5) with married men and women (n = ns) selected from wider community survey and interviews with FP service providers (n = 6) selected from HCPs in local health centres LAPCM
Range 15–49
5. Koster 2010 [6]
Yoruba, Nigeria
Interviews with women with fertility problems (n = 223) who had completed a community survey or those who had participated in the development of the survey Abortion
Range 15–49
b) Qualitative descriptive part of a randomised control trial
6. Chituka et al. 2019 [17]
Lilongwe (Malawi); Cape Town, Durban, Johannesburg (South Africa); Kampala (Uganda); Harare (Zimbabwe)
Single Interviews (n = 34), serial interviews at 3 months, 6 months and product end (n = 80) and focus groups (n = 100 participants) with healthy sexually active HIV-negative women (n = 214) Vaginal ring
Mean 26.4
Range 14–42
c) Qualitative descriptive
7. Castle 2003 [18]
Barnako & Sikasso, Mali
Interviews with adolescent (M: n = 10, F n = 10) from peer education programs, adolescents (M: n = 10, F: n = 10) from community, peer educators (M: n = 10, F n = 10); HCPs (M: n = 4 F n = 4) Hormonal contraceptives
Range 15–19
8. Cover et al. 2017 [19]
Gulu District, Uganda
Interviews with adolescent women (n = 46) from an outreach clinic and youth centre Contraceptive self injection
Range 15–19
9. Hyttel et al. 2012 [20]
Mbarara & Kampala, Uganda
Interviews (F: n = 28; M: n = 18) recruited while waiting for health services, while attending NGO activities, identified by Reproductive Health Uganda peer educators or randomly from their villages
Focus groups (n = 3) with FP service providers (n = 17) working across public and private sectors, policymakers (n = 15) selected from organizations and snowball sampling
Injectable hormonal contraceptives
F; 18–29 (n = 9) / F: 30–45 (n = 19)
M: 18–29 (n = 9) / M: 30–60 (n = 9)
10. Krugu et al. 2017 [21]
Bolgatanga, Ghana
Interviews with young women who have experienced pregnancy (n = 20) recruited through advertisements in public buildings, including schools and health or by nurses at local health centres General contraception and FP
Range 14–19
11. Muanda et al. 2016 [22]
Kinshasa, DRC
Focus groups (n = 10) with women and their husbands who had at least two children (n = ns) recruited from private and public health centres General contraception and FP
20–34 (married); 15–19 (unmarried)
12. Adongo et al. 2014 [23]
SBAB & KEEA, Ghana
Focus groups (n = 21) with men (n = ns) and Women (n = ns) married with children from the community
Interviews with CH officers; HC volunteers and HCM from the community
General contraceptive methods
Not reported
13. Ndwamato
and Ogunbanjo 2009 [24]
Limpopo Province, South Africa
Focus groups (n = 5) with multiparous women (n = ns) seen at a local hospital General contraception and FP
Not reported
14. Otoide et al. 2001 [7]
Benin City, Nigeria
Focus groups (n = 20) with women (n = 149) who were sexually active & those who had not initiated sexual activity who were selected on the basis of their current vocation or pursuit within Benin City Abortion
Range 15–24
15. Schuster 2005 [8]
Anglophone, Cameroon Grassfields
Interviews and participant observation with women who had come to the hospital for treatment of complications of unsafe abortion or who had an induced abortion in their history (n = 58) identified through medical records and women who had had an abortion and had not been hospitalised identified through a snowball sample (n = 7). Interviews with key informants (n = ns) Abortion
Not reported
16. Lunsford et al. 2017 [5]
Nairobi & Nyanza, Kenya
Focus groups (n = 10) with women (n = 60) and their partners (n = 40) who had received cervical cancer screening (n = 60) and those who did not (n = 40) recruited from health care and community forums Cervical screening
Range 25–49
17. Remes et al. 2012 [25]
Mwanza Region & Misungwi, Tanzania
Focus groups (n = 12) and interviews with female students (n = 54) from local schools, teachers (n = 19); Parents (n = 59), health workers (n = 9), religious leaders (n = 9) Vaccination
Students: 11–17
d) Ethnographic studies
18. Ochako et al. 2015 [26]
Kismu, Mombasa &, Thika, Kenya
Interviews with sexually active women both users (n = 20) and non-users of contraceptives (n = 11) purposively selected from the community General contraception and FP
16–19 (n = 13) / 20–24 (n = 11)
19. Klinger and Asgary 2017 [27]
Anivorano Nord, Ambondromifehy, Marotaolana, and Beanemalao; Madagascar
Focus groups (n = 7) with adolescents (F: n = 23 / M: n = 20) residing in or attending local schools
Interviews with those in each of the four villages who were involved with providing medical care or education to the youth in the village (Physician F: n = 1, Midwives F: n = 2, CH Workers n = 2) & Aid workers (n = 2)
General contraceptive methods
Range 15–19
20. Chebet et al. 2015 [28]
Morogoro Region, Tanzania
Interviews with postpartum women (n = 34), their partners (n = 23), community leaders (n = 12); CH leaders (n = 19); Facility health providers (n = 12) recruited from local communities General contraceptive methods
F: Mean 28.56 / F: Range 18–43
21. Sedlander et al. 2018 [29]
Kilifi County, Kenya
Focus groups (n = 32) with men, women, adolescent boys and girls (n = 153) and interviews with village chiefs and elders, pastors, teachers, health care workers (n = 10) from the community. General contraception and FP
Mean 26.2 / Range 13–65
  1. Key: CH community health; DRC Democratic Republic of Congo; F female; FP family planning; HCM health care managers; HCP Health care providers; KEEA Komenda-Edina-Eguafo-Abrem; LAPCM Long acting and permanent contraceptive methods; M Male; SBAB Sefwi Bibiani-Ahwiaso Bekwai. Reference citation follows author name in square brackets