Gender-based violence (GBV) and adverse sexual and reproductive health (ASRH) outcomes are important public health concerns among adolescent girls and young women in Ethiopia. However, evidence varies across systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This umbrella review synthesized evidence on the prevalence of selected ASRH outcomes and GBV and their associated factors. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Science Direct, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and Google Scholar were searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses published from January 2017 to October 28, 2025. Eligible reviews were appraised using AMSTAR, and overlap among primary studies was assessed using the corrected covered area (CCA). ASRH evidence was synthesized narratively, while quantitative synthesis was conducted for GBV and selected associated factors where comparable estimates were available. Nine systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. Reported prevalence estimates for selected ASRH outcomes ranged from 24.7% to 42.8%, while GBV prevalence ranged from 41.15% to 56.34%. The pooled GBV prevalence was 48.0% (95% CI: 43.0–53.0), with very high heterogeneity (I²=99.6%). Alcohol consumption (AOR 3.57, 95% CI: 2.03–6.01), khat chewing (AOR 4.65, 95% CI: 1.47–7.84), and previous sexual intercourse (AOR 4.17, 95% CI: 1.74–10.08) were associated with higher odds of reported GBV. The CCA was 2.5%, indicating slight overlap among reviews. Selected ASRH outcomes and GBV were frequently reported among the populations represented in the included reviews. However, substantial heterogeneity, differences in populations and outcome definitions, reliance on observational evidence, and overlap among primary studies warrant cautious interpretation of the pooled estimates. More representative studies using standardized definitions and measurement approaches are needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Geltore et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: