This study examined discordance between postpartum contraceptive intentions and use among women in Kenya. We used longitudinal, interviewer-administered, face-to-face survey data collected during pregnancy, within 48 hours postpartum, and six months postpartum from 2,240 women enrolled in Postpregnancy Family Planning Choices, a quasi-experimental study of a postpartum contraceptive counseling intervention, implemented in Meru County between 2017 and 2019, with Kilifi County serving as a control site. We summarized contraceptive intention-use discordance immediately postpartum and contraceptive use at six months postpartum by county. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression examined correlates and consequences of downward discordance, defined as contraceptive non-use despite antenatal intention to use a method; regression analyses were restricted to Meru due to sample size. During pregnancy, 60.9% of women in Kilifi and 81.8% in Meru intended to use postpartum contraception. Immediately postpartum, 5.7% of women in Kilifi and 31.2% in Meru were using a method; by six months postpartum this rose to 56.5% and 80.8%, respectively. After accounting for women’s reasons for non-use and reclassifying women who changed their minds about desired use, 23.9% of women in Kilifi and 20.2% in Meru experienced downward discordance. In Meru, downward discordance was more common among women who were more educated (AOR = 1.53, CI: 1.17-2.01), partnered (AOR = 2.20, CI: 1.15-4.22), employed (AOR = 1.92, CI: 1.26-1.93), and those who lacked involvement in contraceptive decision-making (AOR = 12.22, CI: 6.90-21.67). Women with downward discordance immediately postpartum had 85% lower odds of using contraception six months later than women whose contraceptive preferences were met soon after delivery (AOR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.07-0.30). Family planning programs should ensure women can access their preferred contraception across the postpartum period to support them in achieving their reproductive goals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Karp et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: