Systematic review identifies barriers and facilitators to contraception access in young people in LMICs, suggesting necessary interventions.
Background: In Low-and Middle-Income Countries, access to contraception remains a challenge, particularly among young people, as millions encounter difficulties in acquiring and utilizing modern contraceptive methods. This systematic review synthesizes existing evidence relating to barriers and facilitators to access to contraception among young people aged 10 to 24 years in Low-and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). Methods: We conducted a search of various databases for peer-reviewed studies published in English from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2025, and we focused on research that explored the factors affecting access to contraception among young people in LMICs. We identified twenty-four studies that met the inclusion criteria, which were then thematically analyzed. Results: Individual factors, such as fear of side effects and insufficient knowledge, were identified as barriers to access to contraception. Family dynamics, including lack of support from family members and peers, were also noted as obstacles to contraceptive use. Additional barriers include health systems factors such as extended waiting times, negative attitudes from service providers, and lack of confidentiality. Social factors, such as fear of stigma, adherence to religious teachings, and cultural beliefs, presented further challenges. On the other hand, family support, approval from peers, easy access to options of contraceptive methods, and the assurance of confidentiality were recognized as facilitators promoting access to contraception. Conclusion: Young people in LMICs encounter numerous challenges in accessing contraception. To overcome these impediments, it is necessary to implement wide-ranging interventions that are aimed at addressing individual, health systems, social, familial, and economic factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nkhoma et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: