Cross-sectional analysis reveals high informational empowerment reduces unintended pregnancy in pregnant women, highlighting the value of media access for reproductive autonomy.
Unintended pregnancies remain a significant public health concern, particularly in low-resource settings, where they contribute to adverse maternal and child health outcomes. This study examined the association between informational empowerment, attitudes towards intimate partner violence (IPV), and unintended pregnancy among currently pregnant women in Nigeria and the analysis was restricted to 11,001 currently pregnant women aged 15–49 years. Descriptive statistics were used to identify the respondents’ characteristics, while chi-square tests and hierarchical binary logistic regression models were employed to examine factors associated with unintended pregnancy. Findings revealed that 26% of currently pregnant women reported their pregnancy was unintended. Most women had low informational empowerment (35.4%), while 7.7% reported attitudes accepting domestic violence. Bivariate analysis revealed significant associations between unintended pregnancy and age, educational attainment, marital status, wealth index, geopolitical zone, ethnicity of household head, education of household head, and parity. In the fully adjusted model, women with high informational empowerment were significantly less likely to experience unintended pregnancy than those with low informational empowerment (AOR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.46–0.88). However, attitude towards violence was not significantly associated with unintended pregnancy. Higher parity, marital status, ethnicity, and geopolitical zone were also significant predictors. The study concludes that informational empowerment is an important protective factor against unintended pregnancy. Strengthening women’s access to information through mass media and digital communication platforms may contribute to improved reproductive decision-making and reduced unintended pregnancies in Nigeria.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
OYELAKIN et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: