Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Jan 21;21(1):e0337499. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0337499

The role of individual and community empowerment as drivers of contraceptive use among reproductive aged women in Bangladesh: Insights from multilevel analysis using BDHS 2022

Bikash Pal 1,*, Md Abdus Salam Akanda 1
Editor: Patrick Goymer2
PMCID: PMC12822922  PMID: 41563961

Abstract

This study explores the impact of individual and community-level women’s empowerment on contraceptive use in Bangladesh, a country where disparities in access and utilization of modern family planning services persist. Drawing on socio-ecological theory, the research examines how both personal agency and the broader social environment interact to influence women’s reproductive health decisions. Mann–Whitney U tests and chi-square tests were used for unadjusted comparisons, followed by multilevel logistic regression to account for clustering at the community level. Using data from the 2022 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS), the study finds that community-level empowerment was significantly and positively associated with contraceptive use, whereas individual empowerment showed a positive but marginal association (p-value ≈ 0.10). However, community empowerment appears to have a stronger and more consistent effect than individual empowerment. Key socio-economic factors, such as age, education, and residence also significantly influence contraceptive use. The findings underscore the role of community-level empowerment in shaping women’s reproductive health decisions. Community-based strategies, such as women’s support groups, health volunteers, and local leadership engagement, may offer more sustainable improvements in contraceptive use than individual-focused approaches. This study adds to the growing evidence base on empowerment and reproductive health, and provides actionable program design in similar sociocultural contexts.

Introduction

The intersection of women’s empowerment and reproductive health has emerged as a pivotal area of focus in the pursuit of gender equality and sustainable development. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 3 and 5, which aim to improve health and achieve gender equality, underscore the importance of promoting reproductive health and women’s rights. Despite progress in women’s education and family planning access, barriers remain in low- and middle-income countries such as Bangladesh. Inadequate access to and utilization of family planning resources has led to an estimated 14 million unintended pregnancies annually across the globe, contributing to unsafe abortions, maternal mortality, and broader socio-economic consequences for families and communities [1]. In Bangladesh, where access to modern contraception remains limited, these figures reflect a failure to meet the reproductive health needs of women, especially those in marginalized communities. Although education often increases contraceptive use [2], disparities remain in rural and conservative areas where social norms strongly influence women’s choices [3]. This suggests that focusing solely on individual-level variables may overlook critical contextual influences. In particular, gender norms, cultural practices, and social attitudes within a community may play a significant role in shaping women’s autonomy and ability to make informed decisions about their reproductive health. For instance, research has shown that in communities with strong patriarchal norms, where gender equality is limited, women are less likely to use modern contraceptives [4]. On the other hand, in communities where gender equality is more pronounced, women may face fewer barriers to accessing contraception and enjoy greater support from both their families and peers [5]. Furthermore, sociocultural norms are deeply rooted in patriarchal values in Bangladesh that often limit women’s autonomy, especially regarding reproductive decision-making. Traditional gender roles frequently position men as the primary decision-makers, while women’s reproductive choices are subject to family or societal expectations. Religious beliefs, though diverse in interpretation, can sometimes reinforce conservative views that discourage contraceptive use. Furthermore, discussing contraception publicly is often considered taboo, which creates barriers to open communication and informed choice. These cultural constraints highlight the importance of examining both personal and collective empowerment in this context.

In Bangladesh, where patriarchal structures continue to dominate social life, understanding the relationship between community-level empowerment and individual contraceptive use is critical. It is essential to recognize that a woman’s ability to access family planning services and make informed reproductive choices is not only influenced by her personal level of empowerment but also by the social context in which she lives. Societal norms, community beliefs, and local attitudes toward gender roles can significantly affect women’s decision-making power, including their ability to make choices about contraception [6]. Although prior studies in Bangladesh have examined women’s empowerment and contraceptive use, most rely on older DHS waves, focus primarily on individual-level indicators, or do not explicitly model community-level empowerment. Moreover, few studies use PCA-based composite empowerment indices combined with multilevel modeling to disentangle individual and contextual effects. Using the most recent BDHS 2022 data, this study addresses these gaps by constructing individual and community empowerment indices and estimating their independent associations with contraceptive use within a multilevel framework.

The socio-ecological theory posits that human behavior is influenced by multiple, interacting levels of influence: individual, interpersonal, community, and societal [7]. In the context of contraceptive use, individual-level empowerment reflects personal agency and autonomy. Meanwhile, community-level empowerment, measured as the aggregate empowerment within a community or cluster, reflects the broader social norms and collective agency that can either support or constrain individual behavior. Guided by socio-ecological theory, this study conceptualizes contraceptive use as the result of interacting influences at multiple levels. At the individual level, empowerment reflects women’s agency, decision-making autonomy, and rejection of gender-based violence, which can enhance confidence and negotiation within partnerships. At the community level, aggregated empowerment reflects shared gender norms, social acceptance of women’s autonomy, and collective agency that shape expectations, information flows, and support for contraceptive behavior. We hypothesize that community-level empowerment exerts an independent influence on contraceptive use beyond individual empowerment by creating enabling social environments that normalize and legitimize family planning.

Methods

Data

This study utilized the latest Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS) dataset conducted in 2022. Women aged 15–49 from randomly selected households were targeted using a two-stage cluster sampling design. To ensure national representation, the survey covered 675 enumeration areas, of which 237 were from urban and 438 from rural areas. Data extraction focused on the individual record (IR file) from the BDHS dataset. A total of 20,160 households were initially selected, but the analysis was restricted to currently married women aged 15–49 with complete information on contraceptive use, empowerment indicators, and covariates. Women who were not currently married or had missing information on key variables were excluded. After sequentially removing observations with missing values, the final analytic sample consisted of 18,632 women.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study is based on publicly available secondary data from the 2022 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS), accessed through formal approval from the DHS Program. The original survey protocols were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of ICF International, USA, and the Bangladesh Medical Research Council. Prior to data collection, informed consent was obtained from all participants by trained field staff. The dataset used in this study was fully anonymized and does not contain any identifiable information, ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of respondents. As the authors did not participate in the original data collection and worked only with de-identified secondary data, this study posed no additional ethical risks and involved minimal potential for researcher bias.

Outcome variable

This study considers women’s current contraceptive use as the outcome variable. The original variable, which includes multiple categories, has been simplified into a binary outcome: ‘no’ for non-use and ‘yes’ for all other categories [8].

Independent variable

Guided by the socio-ecological theory, this study explores women’s empowerment at both individual and community levels as the key independent variables. Individual empowerment reflects a woman’s own capacity for decision-making and her attitudes toward gender-based violence, which captures her intrapersonal agency. Community empowerment represents the average level of empowerment across women in a cluster (enumeration area) to reflect shared norms and collective agency. This allows for examining how the social context may influence individuals beyond their personal traits.

Individual empowerment

Women’s empowerment at the individual level has been assessed through two key dimensions: participation in household decision-making and attitudes toward wife beating [9,10]. Decision-making participation was measured by asking women about their involvement in four areas: decisions regarding their healthcare, major household purchases, visits to relatives, and the use of their husband’s earnings. Responses were recorded as binary (yes = 1, no = 0), where “yes” indicated that the woman had a role in the decision, either alone or jointly. Attitudes toward wife beating was assessed based on five scenarios in which a husband might be justified hitting his wife, which includes going out without permission, neglecting children, arguing, refusing to have sex, or burning food. Women who rejected all justifications were coded as 1 (empowered), while those who accepted at least one justification were coded as 0. These nine indicators were combined using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) [11,12] to generate a continuous empowerment score for each individual (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Flowchart of constructing women’s empowerment.

Fig 1

Community empowerment

To capture the broader social environment, a community-level empowerment variable has been created by aggregating individual empowerment scores within each cluster (enumeration area) (Fig 1). The community empowerment score represents the average empowerment level of all women within a given cluster [4]. Community-level averages were computed using data from all women in the PSU to capture the average beliefs and behavior of women in the community, rather than limiting the measure to parous women only.

Control variable

Building upon prior research, this study incorporates several control variables that may influence the relationship between women’s empowerment and current contraceptive use [1315]. The selected variables include: Women’s current age (<25, 25–35, > 35), Husband’s current age (<30, 30–40, > 40), Women’s education (No education, Primary, Secondary, Higher), Number of living children (1–2, > 2), Place of residence (Rural, Urban), Working status (Yes, No), Media exposure (Yes, No), and Wealth index (Poor, Middle, Rich). The DHS wealth quintiles were collapsed into three categories: poor (poorest and poorer), middle, and rich (richer and richest) [16].

Statistical analysis

To construct a composite measure of women’s empowerment, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was applied to derive an index score from multiple indicators. PCA is widely adopted in Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) for constructing composite indices such as the wealth index, due to its capacity to reduce dimensionality by capturing the maximum variation from correlated variables into fewer components. Following this established practice, we used PCA to combine multiple empowerment indicators into a single score, without assuming a predefined factor structure. The principal components (PCm) are calculated as:

PCm=kwmkXk

where wmkrepresents the weight of the k-th variable in the m-th principal component, and Xkare the original variables [17].

The Mann-Whitney U test has been employed to compare the distribution of empowerment scores between women who use contraceptives and those who do not [18,19]. Since empowerment scores are not normally distributed, the Mann-Whitney U test provides a non-parametric alternative to assess whether there was a significant difference between these groups. Additionally, to examine the bivariate associations between contraceptive use and various control variables, Chi-square tests have been conducted [20,21].

Given the hierarchical nature of the data, where women are nested within clusters, multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression models with random intercepts at the cluster level were fitted [22]. The multilevel logistic regression model is represented by the equation

ln(pij1pij)=β0+β1xij1+β2xij2++βkxijk+uj,

where pij is the probability of contraceptive use of the ith woman in the jth cluster, xijk represents individual and community-level predictors such as women’s empowerment and other socio-economic or demographic characteristics, βk be the regression coefficients corresponding to the kth independent variable, and uj be the random effect term for the jth cluster [20,22]. Measures of between-cluster variation were assessed using the cluster-level variance, intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), and median odds ratio (MOR). The proportional change in variance (PCV) was computed to quantify the extent to which covariates explained between-cluster variability. Model fit was evaluated using log-likelihood, Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), and likelihood ratio tests comparing nested models [23].

Multicollinearity among independent variables has been assessed using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) to identify potential correlations [24]. To further explore the association between women’s empowerment and contraceptive use, visualizations have been created based on predicted probabilities and empowerment levels. All statistical analyses are performed using SPSS (version 26) and R (version 4.3.2).

Results

Table 1 presents the results of the Mann-Whitney U test, which has been conducted to compare empowerment scores between women who use contraceptives and those who do not. The median individual empowerment score is higher among women who use contraceptives (median = 0.340, IQR = 1.300) compared to those who do not (median = 0.297, IQR = 1.310). Similarly, the community empowerment score is higher among contraceptive users (median = 0.049, IQR = 0.414) than non-users (median = 0.032, IQR = 0.402). The p-values (<0.001) in both cases indicate strong statistical evidence that contraceptive use is associated with higher levels of both individual and collective empowerment.

Table 1. Mann-Whitney U Test Results for Comparing Empowerment Scores by Contraceptive Use Among Currently Married Women Aged 15–49, BDHS 2022.

Contraceptive use Median IQR Effect Size W Statistic p-value
Individual empowerment Yes 0.340 1.300 0.042 37813922 <0.001
No 0.297 1.310
Community empowerment Yes 0.049 0.414 0.043 37651313 <0.001
No 0.032 0.402

Table 2 presents the unadjusted association between contraceptive use and various socio-economic and demographic characteristics. The second and third columns display the row percentages of contraceptive use across different categories. All the Chi-square test p-values are found to be less than 0.001, which indicate strong statistical associations between contraceptive use and all selected variables.

Table 2. Chi-square Test of Association between Contraceptive Use and Several Socio-economic Characteristics Among Currently Married Women Aged 15–49, BDHS 2022*.

Variable Contraceptive use p-value
No Yes
Women’s current age <0.001
<25 42.4 57.6
25-35 31.7 68.3
>35 34.8 65.2
Husband’s current age <0.001
<30 42.2 57.8
30-40 33.8 66.2
>40 34.3 65.7
Women’s education <0.001
No education 38.2 61.8
Primary 31.2 68.8
Secondary 36.1 63.9
Higher 38.9 61.1
Number of living children <0.001
1-2 39.0 61.0
>2 27.6 72.4
Place of residence <0.001
Rural 37.0 63.0
Urban 32.8 67.2
Working status <0.001
No 38.6 61.4
Yes 28.4 71.6
Media exposure <0.001
No 39.0 61.0
Yes 33.0 67.0
Wealth index <0.001
Poor 33.3 66.7
Middle 35.1 64.9
Rich 37.7 62.3

*Note that values in the second and third column represents row percentages.

Table 3 presents the results from the multilevel binary logistic regression model to examine the adjusted association between contraceptive use and key explanatory variables. The analysis accounts for both individual- and community-level factors while adjusting for socio-economic and demographic characteristics.

Table 3. Multilevel Binary Logistic Regression Model Estimates of the Selected Variables for Contraceptive Use in Bangladesh from BDHS 2022 Data along with Standard Error (SE), p-value and Odds Ratio (OR).

Variable Estimate SE p-value OR
Individual empowerment 0.028 0.017 0.100 1.028
Community empowerment 0.225 0.078 0.004 1.252
Women’s current age
<25
25-35 0.204 0.052 <0.001 1.226
>35 −0.065 0.072 0.362 0.937
Husband’s current age
<30
30-40 0.129 0.055 0.019 1.137
>40 0.098 0.072 0.172 1.104
Women’s education
No education
Primary 0.407 0.057 <0.001 1.502
Secondary 0.376 0.057 <0.001 1.457
Higher 0.255 0.071 <0.001 1.290
Number of living children
2
>2 0.685 0.043 <0.001 1.983
Place of residence
Rural
Urban 0.297 0.052 <0.001 1.346
Working status
No
Yes 0.352 0.038 <0.001 1.422
Media exposure
No
Yes 0.316 0.036 <0.001 1.372
Wealth index
Poor
Middle −0.165 0.047 <0.001 0.848
Rich −0.381 0.045 <0.001 0.683

The results indicate that women living in more empowered communities have higher odds of using contraception (OR = 1.252, p-value = 0.004), even after adjusting for other factors. In contrast, individual-level empowerment is also positively associated with contraceptive use, though with lower statistical significance (OR = 1.028, p-value = 0.100). This indicates that while individual empowerment contributes to contraceptive decision-making, its effect is weaker compared to community-level empowerment.

Among the control variables, women aged 25–35 years have 22.6% higher odds of utilizing contraceptive methods compared to those under 25, while women older than 35 do not show a significant difference. Similarly, women married to partners aged 30–40 years are associated with 13.7% higher odds of contraceptive use, whereas no significant association is observed for partners older than 40.

Women who completed primary (OR = 1.502, p-value < 0.001), secondary (OR = 1.457, p-value < 0.001), or higher education (OR = 1.290, p-value < 0.001) being significantly more likely to use contraception compared to those with no formal education. Women with more than two living children are also more likely to use contraception (OR = 1.983, p-value < 0.001).

Residence, employment status, and media exposure also show strong associations with contraceptive use. Women residing in urban areas have 1.346 times odds of using contraception than their rural counterparts. Similarly, employed women (OR = 1.422, p-value < 0.001) and/or those with media exposure (OR = 1.372, p-value < 0.001) are more likely to use contraception.

Notably, wealth index shows an inverse association as the women from middle-income or rich households have 15.2% and 31.7% lower odds, respectively, of using contraceptives compared to those from poor households. Moreover, multicollinearity was assessed using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF), and all values were below 10, which indicates the absence of multicollinearity in the model. Additionally, the estimated cluster-level variance was 0.17, corresponding to an ICC of 5.0%, indicating that approximately five percent of the total variation in contraceptive use was attributable to differences between clusters. The median odds ratio (MOR) was 1.49, suggesting that, for two women with identical individual characteristics drawn from different clusters, the median difference in the odds of contraceptive use was 49% due solely to cluster-level factors. After adjustment for individual- and community-level covariates, the cluster-level variance decreased by 11.8%, as indicated by a proportional change in variance (PCV) of 0.12, demonstrating that the included covariates explained a meaningful proportion of the between-cluster heterogeneity. Model fit improved significantly after inclusion of the explanatory variables. The full model showed a marked reduction in AIC (23243 vs. 23964) and BIC (23384 vs. 23980) compared with the null model. Likelihood ratio testing further confirmed that the final model provided a significantly better fit to the data than the null model (χ² = 753.0, df = 16, p-value < 0.001).

To further enhance the interpretation of the regression results, a heatmap was constructed based on the odds ratios derived from the multilevel logistic regression model (Fig 2). The color gradient represents the magnitude and direction of the associations, with green shades indicating positive relationships (OR > 1) and red shades indicating negative relationships (OR < 1). The figure clearly highlights that community-level empowerment, women’s education, employment, urban residence, and media exposure are positively associated with contraceptive use, whereas higher wealth status shows an inverse relationship. This visualization provides an intuitive summary of the relative influence of each factor on contraceptive behavior.

Fig 2. Heatmap of odds ratios for contraceptive use.

Fig 2

Fig 3 illustrates the relationship between empowerment and the predicted probability of contraceptive use based on the multilevel binary logistic regression model. The x-axis represents empowerment levels, with community empowerment on the left and individual empowerment on the right, while the y-axis shows the predicted probability of contraceptive use. The scatter points represent individual observations, and the blue lines indicate the predicted probability trends with shaded confidence intervals.

Fig 3. Predicted probability of contraceptive use by levels of empowerment.

Fig 3

The results indicate a positive association between community empowerment and contraceptive use, as the probability of contraceptive use gradually increases with higher levels of community empowerment. In contrast, the association between individual empowerment and contraceptive use appears weaker. The predicted probability remains relatively flat at lower levels of individual empowerment and only shows a slight upward trend at higher levels. Overall, the findings suggest that while both collective and individual empowerment positively influence contraceptive use, community empowerment has a stronger and more consistent effect. This aligns with the statistical results presented at Table 3, where collective empowerment was found to be highly significant (p-value = 0.004), whereas individual empowerment was significant at the 10% level (p-value = 0.100).

Discussion

This study contributes to a growing body of research exploring the impact of women’s empowerment on reproductive health decisions, with a specific focus on contraceptive use in Bangladesh. Our findings support the socio-ecological theory by demonstrating that both individual- and community-level factors significantly influence contraceptive use. Previous studies have consistently shown that empowerment, particularly gender equality, enhances open communication between partners regarding reproductive health, enhances women’s access to reproductive health services, and ultimately leads to improved health outcomes [25,26]. Our analysis extends these findings by providing robust evidence from a nationally representative dataset, emphasizing the importance of both individual and community empowerment in facilitating contraceptive adoption. In our study, community empowerment exerted a stronger influence on contraceptive use than individual autonomy, which indicates the importance of shared gender norms and collective agency in shaping reproductive behavior. This finding demonstrates the importance of broader community engagement in empowering women and improving access to family planning services. In contrast, individual empowerment is positively associated with contraceptive use, but its effect is found to be weaker and less statistically significant. This suggests that while individual empowerment contributes to contraceptive decision-making, its influence is less pronounced than the influence of community factors. These findings may be explained by the fact that women’s decisions are often shaped not only by personal autonomy but also by social norms, cultural values, and access to resources within their communities. Therefore, community-level empowerment initiatives, such as awareness campaigns and the strengthening of health infrastructure, may be more effective in promoting contraceptive use than individual empowerment efforts alone.

Several socio-economic and demographic characteristics have been found to significantly influence contraceptive use. Consistent with earlier research, middle-aged women show greater contraceptive uptake, likely reflecting increased reproductive decision-making power. [27,28]. Similarly, women with more than two living children are more likely to use contraceptives, which may reflect a desire to control family size once a certain number of children has been reached [29].

Our finding supports existing literature that emphasizes the positive influence of education on family planning decisions [30]. Educated women typically have better access to health services, more effective communication with their partners, and a greater understanding of reproductive health, which empowers them to make informed choices regarding contraception. Our study also finds that women residing in urban areas, those employed, and those with media exposure have significantly higher odds of using contraceptives, consistent with the view that urban settings and economic empowerment provide women with better access to family planning resources [3133]. On the contrary, the study reveals an inverse association between wealth status and contraceptive use [34]. This unexpected finding challenges the assumption that wealth automatically correlates with increased access to family planning services. In affluent households, traditional or conservative values may persist, emphasizing lineage continuation or a preference for larger families, which can reduce contraceptive uptake despite greater accessibility. Moreover, the inverse association may reflect differences in method mix and fertility preferences. Wealthier women may prefer traditional or periodic methods not captured as “use,” desire larger families, or face normative expectations regarding lineage continuation. Additionally, quality of services and provider bias may vary by socioeconomic context, and urban–wealth interactions could obscure simple linear gradients.

Implications for policy and practice

The study findings suggest that family planning programs in Bangladesh should incorporate both individual- and community-level empowerment components. Empowerment messages and activities can be integrated into existing community health worker and family welfare assistant programs, enabling routine household visits and community sessions to address women’s decision-making, spousal communication, and reproductive autonomy alongside contraceptive counseling.

Community-based women’s groups and forums can be leveraged to challenge restrictive gender norms and strengthen collective agency, particularly in rural settings. In addition, engaging local leaders, including religious and elected representatives, through targeted sensitization initiatives may help legitimize contraceptive use and women’s empowerment within communities. Complementary media and community communication strategies, such as radio programs and locally tailored messaging, can reinforce these norm-changing efforts. Together, these approaches can enhance the effectiveness and reach of family planning services in Bangladesh.

Limitations and future research

While this study provides valuable insights into the relationship between women’s empowerment and contraceptive use, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the cross-sectional design prevents establishing causality; higher empowerment may lead to greater contraceptive use, or contraceptive adoption may enhance empowerment. Longitudinal data would help clarify these relationships. Second, reliance on self-reported information may introduce recall or social desirability bias, particularly in conservative contexts where women might overreport socially accepted behaviors. Third, the empowerment index was limited to available BDHS indicators and did not capture aspects such as political participation or social support. In addition, unmeasured cluster-level factors, such as local health infrastructure, NGO activities, or access to family planning services, may influence the results. Future research should apply causal modeling and mixed-methods designs to better identify mechanisms linking empowerment and contraceptive behavior. Qualitative approaches like focus groups or in-depth interviews could reveal how social norms, male partners, and community leaders shape reproductive decisions. Studies could also examine how collective empowerment mediates the relationship between education and contraceptive use.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study highlights the significant role of both individual and community empowerment in influencing contraceptive use among Bangladeshi women. While individual empowerment contributes to contraceptive decision-making, community empowerment has a more pronounced and consistent effect. Socio-economic and demographic factors, such as education, age, and residence, also play a critical role in shaping women’s contraceptive choices. These findings provide valuable evidence for policymakers and practitioners seeking to design effective family planning programs to empower women and promote reproductive health in Bangladesh.

Acknowledgments

We express our appreciation to the DHS (Demographic and Health Surveys) for granting us access to their dataset for our research. Furthermore, we acknowledge the National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT) for conducting the BDHS, 2017–2022.

Data Availability

The original dataset used in this study is publicly available from the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program repository at: https://dhsprogram.com/data/available-datasets.cfm. The specific dataset extracted and used for this analysis can be accessed through the following link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YJW0yocVjU_gBZKhezU5RUOwSonZ_qKM/view?usp=sharing.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Coulson J, Sharma V, Wen H. Understanding the global dynamics of continuing unmet need for family planning and unintended pregnancy. China Popul Dev Stud. 2023;7(1):1–14. doi: 10.1007/s42379-023-00130-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Khan MN, Harris ML, Huda MN, Loxton D. A population-level data linkage study to explore the association between health facility level factors and unintended pregnancy in Bangladesh. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):15165. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-19559-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Khatun N, Howlader S, Rahman MM. Women’s sexual empowerment and its relationship to contraceptive use in Bangladesh: findings from a recent national survey. International Journal of Public Health. 2023;68:1606143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Metheny N, Stephenson R. How the community shapes unmet need for modern contraception: an analysis of 44 demographic and health surveys. Stud Fam Plann. 2017;48(3):235–51. doi: 10.1111/sifp.12028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cleland J, Bernstein S, Ezeh A, Faundes A, Glasier A, Innis J. Family planning: the unfinished agenda. Lancet. 2006;368(9549):1810–27. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69480-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Shabuz ZR, Haque ME, Islam MK, Bari W. Link between unmet need and economic status in Bangladesh: gap in urban and rural areas. BMC Womens Health. 2022;22(1):176. doi: 10.1186/s12905-022-01752-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Moyehodie YA, Mulugeta SS, Amare Yilema S. The effects of individual and community-level factors on community-based health insurance enrollment of households in Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2022;17(10):e0275896. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275896 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Some SYM, Pu C, Huang S-L. Empowerment and use of modern contraceptive methods among married women in Burkina Faso: a multilevel analysis. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1498. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11541-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Akter S, Hosen MS, Khan MS, Pal B. Assessing the pattern of key factors on women’s empowerment in Bangladesh: Evidence from Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey, 2007 to 2017-18. PLoS One. 2024;19(3):e0301501. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Akter S, Khan MS, Hosen MS, Pal B. Rise of women: a decadal journey of women’s empowerment in Bangladesh (2010-2020). Dhaka Univ J Sci. 2024;72(2):34–44. doi: 10.3329/dujs.v72i2.75469 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sen KK, Nilima S. Women’s empowerment and its determinants in bangladesh: evidence from a national survey. Dhaka Univ J Sci. 2018;66(2):129–34. doi: 10.3329/dujs.v66i2.54557 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pal B, Akanda MA. Examining the role of women’s empowerment in contraceptive use among reproductive-age women in Bangladesh: Examining the role of women’s empowerment in contraceptive use among reproductive. Dhaka University Journal of Science. 2025;73(2):161–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Pal B, Md Shafiullah AZ. Factors of Using Long Acting and Permanent Methods (LAPM) of contraception: Bangladesh perspective. Dhaka Univ J Sci. 2023;71(2):87–94. doi: 10.3329/dujs.v71i2.69090 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ullah MA, Kamal SM, Begum R, Wahid T. Women health, empowerment and its association with contraceptive use. Journal of Angiotherapy. 2024;8(6):1–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Jejeebhoy SJ, Sathar Z. Revisiting women’s empowerment and contraception. Population & Development Rev. 2024;50(S2):597–623. doi: 10.1111/padr.12688 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Afroz F, Akib MMH, Pal B, Asha AS. Impact of parental education on number of under five children death per mother in Bangladesh. PLoS One. 2025;20(2):e0318787. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318787 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Greenacre M, Groenen PJ, Hastie T, d’Enza AI, Markos A, Tuzhilina E. Principal component analysis. Nature Reviews Methods Primers. 2022;2(1):100. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Akib MMH, Afroz F, Pal B. Beyond averages: dissecting urban-rural disparities in skilled antenatal care utilization in Bangladesh - a conway-maxwell-poisson regression analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025;25(1):119. doi: 10.1186/s12884-025-07237-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Tanvia L, Haque ME, Bari W. Rural-urban disparity in uptaking skilled antenatal care visits by pregnant women in Bangladesh: Zero and One Inflated Poisson regression model. PLoS One. 2025;20(1):e0318341. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318341 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Amin MT, Ara T, Pal B, Ferdous Z, Esha SN, Patwary H, et al. Prevalence and correlates of anxiety and depression among ever-married reproductive-aged women in Bangladesh: national-level insights from the 2022 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey. BMC Public Health. 2025;25(1):1143. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-22228-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Nilima S, Sen KK, Fatima-Tuz-Zahura, Bari W. Prevalence and determinants of readiness of health facilities for quality antenatal care services in Bangladesh. J Public Health Policy. 2024;45(4):654–72. doi: 10.1057/s41271-024-00514-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Afroz S, Sutopa TS, Haque MR. Young mothers’ attitudes towards domestic violence and their maternal healthcare services utilization in Bangladesh: A multilevel cluster analysis. PLoS One. 2022;17(8):e0268062. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268062 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Rafi RR, Pal B. Child nutritional status in Bangladesh: prevalence, determinants, and policy implications. Reproductive, Female and Child Health. 2025;4(4):e70045. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Thompson CG, Kim RS, Aloe AM, Becker BJ. Extracting the variance inflation factor and other multicollinearity diagnostics from typical regression results. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 2017;39(2):81–90. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2016.1277529 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Altuwaijri S, Saadat S, Boudjadja M, Nielsen CP, Gordillo-Tobar AE, Maruo M. Achieving Gender Equity in Health: Key Areas of Focus Under Universal Health Coverage. World Bank Group; 2024. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ravindran TS, Hebbar P, Bhushan A, Nambiar D, Mishra S, Mohan M. Sex and Gender Issues in Health Systems in South Asia: An Overview. Handbook on Sex, Gender and Health: Perspectives from South Asia. 2024. p. 1–46. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hameed W, Azmat SK, Ali M, Sheikh MI, Abbas G, Temmerman M, et al. Women’s empowerment and contraceptive use: the role of independent versus couples’ decision-making, from a lower middle income country perspective. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e104633. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104633 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tesfa D, Tiruneh SA, Azanaw MM, Gebremariam AD, Engidaw MT, Tiruneh M, et al. Determinants of contraceptive decision making among married women in Sub-Saharan Africa from the recent Demographic and Health Survey data. BMC Womens Health. 2022;22(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s12905-022-01636-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Deb S, Kabir A, Kawsar LA. Women’s empowerment and regional variation of contraceptive norms in Bangladesh. Int Q Community Health Educ. 2010;31(4):401–10. doi: 10.2190/IQ.31.4.g [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Koch E, Calhoun B, Aracena P, Gatica S, Bravo M. Women’s education level, contraceptive use and maternal mortality estimates. Public Health. 2014;128(4):384–7. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2014.01.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sserwanja Q, Turimumahoro P, Nuwabaine L, Kamara K, Musaba MW. Association between exposure to family planning messages on different mass media channels and the utilization of modern contraceptives among young women in Sierra Leone: insights from the 2019 Sierra Leone Demographic Health Survey. BMC Womens Health. 2022;22(1):376. doi: 10.1186/s12905-022-01974-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Islam AZ, Mondal MNI, Khatun ML, Rahman MM, Islam MR, Mostofa MG, et al. Prevalence and Determinants of Contraceptive use among Employed and Unemployed Women in Bangladesh. Int J MCH AIDS. 2016;5(2):92–102. doi: 10.21106/ijma.83 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Seran AA, Laksono AD, Prahastuti Sujoso AD, Ibrahim I, Marasabessy NB, Roharia N. Does contraception used better in urban areas?: An analysis of the 2017 IDHS (Indonesia demographic and health survey). Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy. 2020;11(11). [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Haque SE, Rahman M, Mostofa MG, Zahan MS. Reproductive health care utilization among young mothers in Bangladesh: does autonomy matter?. Womens Health Issues. 2012;22(2):e171-80. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2011.08.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Jay Saha

15 May 2025

Dear Dr. Pal,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 29 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jay Saha

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: [We express our appreciation to the DHS (Demographic and Health Surveys) for granting us access to their dataset for our research. Furthermore, we acknowledge the National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT) for conducting the BDHS, 2017–2022.]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This study aims to explore the impact of individual and community-level women's empowerment on contraceptive use in Bangladesh. While the research topic is relevant and aligns with ongoing global discussions on reproductive health, several shortcomings hinder the overall quality and applicability of the findings.

1. Conceptual and Theoretical Limitations

• The study claims to draw on socio-ecological theory but does not elaborate on how different levels of empowerment are operationalized within this framework. A more in-depth discussion on the theoretical underpinnings and justification for applying this model is necessary.

• It lacks a clear differentiation between individual and community empowerment, making it difficult to assess how these variables interact beyond their statistical significance.

2. Methodological Weaknesses

• The study relies solely on secondary data from the 2022 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS), yet it does not account for potential biases or limitations within this dataset. For example, self-reported contraceptive use may be subject to social desirability bias.

• The study states that community empowerment has a stronger and more consistent effect than individual empowerment, but it fails to explain the causal mechanisms driving this relationship. A more rigorous analysis, such as a mediation or moderation model, could strengthen the findings.

• Key socio-economic factors such as education, age, and residence are mentioned but not analyzed in depth. The study could improve by investigating how these variables interact with empowerment levels to influence contraceptive use.

3. Interpretation and Policy Implications

• The study suggests that community-based interventions are more effective than individual-focused approaches, yet it does not provide empirical evidence to support this claim beyond statistical associations. Future research should include qualitative insights or longitudinal data to assess long-term effectiveness.

• While the study offers insights for policymakers, the recommendations remain generic. A more practical discussion on how policies should be designed and implemented to enhance community-level empowerment would improve its real-world impact.

4. Writing and Structure

• The study makes broad claims about gender equality and reproductive health without fully contextualizing them within Bangladesh’s sociocultural, religious, or economic landscape.

• Some sections are repetitive, particularly when emphasizing the importance of community-level empowerment. A more concise and structured argument would enhance readability.

Suggested Improvements

1. Strengthen theoretical justification by clearly defining empowerment at both individual and community levels.

2. Improve methodological rigor by acknowledging limitations in the dataset and considering alternative analytical approaches.

3. Deepen policy recommendations by making them more specific and actionable rather than broad suggestions.

4. Enhance clarity and coherence by avoiding redundancy and refining key arguments.

Overall, while the study contributes to the discourse on women’s empowerment and contraceptive use, its lack of theoretical depth, methodological limitations, and weak policy implications diminish its impact. Addressing these concerns would significantly enhance the study’s academic and practical relevance.

The manuscript effectively addresses the intersection of women's empowerment and reproductive health, emphasizing the significance of community-level influences on contraceptive use in Bangladesh. The research aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and employs a robust methodological approach using BDHS data. However, several areas require improvement to enhance clarity, depth, and scholarly rigor.

1. Conceptual Framework and Literature Review

• The study adequately highlights individual and community-level influences but lacks a well-defined conceptual framework to integrate these aspects systematically. While the socio-ecological theory is mentioned, it is not sufficiently elaborated upon.

• The literature review is extensive but tends to be descriptive rather than analytical. A more critical engagement with previous studies, including conflicting evidence, would strengthen the theoretical foundation.

• The study relies heavily on general references to gender norms and cultural practices without providing concrete examples or empirical support from the Bangladeshi context.

2. Clarity and Precision in Argumentation

• The discussion of contraceptive use and women’s empowerment would benefit from clearer differentiation between individual and community-level empowerment. The distinction is implied but not consistently maintained throughout the text.

• Certain key terms such as "community empowerment," "decision-making power," and "gender norms" need more precise definitions to avoid ambiguity.

• The phrase "notable investment in family planning programs and improvements in women’s education and employment" is vague. Providing specific data or referencing policy interventions would add credibility.

3. Methodological Concerns

• The study employs Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for constructing empowerment indices but does not justify why this method was chosen over alternatives such as factor analysis or confirmatory factor analysis.

• The use of the Mann-Whitney U test for empowerment score comparison is appropriate given the non-normality assumption; however, providing a rationale for not employing parametric tests such as logistic regression in these instances would be beneficial.

• The multilevel logistic regression model is well-justified but lacks an explicit discussion of how model assumptions (e.g., multicollinearity, interaction effects) were tested and addressed.

• The description of control variables is comprehensive, but the rationale for their inclusion should be more explicitly tied to previous research and theoretical expectations.

4. Interpretation and Implications of Findings

• The discussion section presents a rather linear interpretation of findings without adequately addressing potential confounders or alternative explanations.

• While the study implies causality in some areas (e.g., "community empowerment may significantly reduce stigma"), it does not sufficiently acknowledge the limitations of cross-sectional data in establishing causal relationships.

• Policy recommendations are general and should be more directly linked to specific interventions, drawing from evidence-based strategies implemented in similar socio-cultural settings.

5. Writing Style and Structure

• The manuscript is well-organized but contains redundant phrases and overly long sentences that can obscure key points.

• Some sections, particularly the methodology, are overly technical and may benefit from simplification or clearer sub-headings.

• Minor grammatical inconsistencies and awkward phrasing (e.g., "Bangladesh’s" instead of "Bangladesh") detract from readability and should be addressed through careful proofreading.

6. Ethical Considerations and Data Transparency

• The ethics section is well-documented but should explicitly mention data availability and any potential limitations in BDHS data usage.

• Given the sensitive nature of reproductive health topics, discussing ethical considerations related to informed consent, data anonymization, and researcher biases would enhance the ethical rigor of the study.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes: Ashek Elahi Noor

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS atfigures@plos.org

PLoS One. 2026 Jan 21;21(1):e0337499. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0337499.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


12 Jul 2025

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to revise and resubmit our work. Below, we respond to each point raised and describe how we have addressed them in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer Comments and Author Responses

1. Conceptual and Theoretical Limitations

Comment 1.1: The socio-ecological theory was mentioned but not elaborated.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. In response, we have expanded the Introduction (lines 84–90), Methods (lines 115–121), and Discussion (lines 252–253) sections of the revised manuscript to more clearly articulate how the socio-ecological theory informs the conceptual framework and analytical approach of our study.

Comment 1.2: Lack of clear differentiation between individual and community empowerment.

Response: Thank you for the insightful comment. We have now provided clearer and more precise definitions to distinguish between individual and community-level empowerment in the Methods section (lines 115–121) of the revised manuscript.

2. Methodological Weaknesses

Comment 2.1: Dataset limitations like self-reporting bias not discussed.

Response: We have acknowledged potential biases in the ‘Limitations and Future Research’ section, specifically noting social desirability bias related to self-reported contraceptive use in BDHS.

Comment 2.2: Lack of causal mechanism analysis.

Response: We appreciate this important observation. In the revised manuscript, we have explicitly acknowledged the limitation regarding causal inference in the “Limitations and Future Research” section. We have suggested that future studies use advanced causal modeling techniques (e.g., mediation or moderation analysis) to explore potential causal mechanisms.

Comment 2.3: Socio-economic variables not explored in depth.

Response: Given that all eight socio-economic factors considered in this study were significantly associated with contraceptive use in our analysis (Table 3), and that community empowerment also had a strong, independent effect; it is plausible that these socio-economic factors may enhance or condition the impact of community-level empowerment. Although we did not formally test for interaction effects, future research could explore whether these factors moderate the relationship between empowerment and contraceptive use.

3. Interpretation and Policy Implications

Comment 3.1: Policy implications are general.

Response: We appreciate this suggestion. To address it, we have revised the ‘Implications for Policy and Practice’ section by adding specific examples of community-based interventions, such as women’s support groups, community health volunteers, and engagement of local leaders, which can strengthen community empowerment and enhance contraceptive uptake. Additionally, we have updated the ‘Abstract’ (line 37-40) to reflect these specific recommendations in a more concise and actionable manner.

Comment 3.2: Need for contextualization within Bangladeshi sociocultural norms.

Response: We have incorporated additional contextual information on gender norms, religious practices, and the influence of patriarchy in Bangladesh. These revisions have been added to the Introduction (lines 63–70) of the revised manuscript to strengthen the socio-cultural framing of the study.

4. Writing and Structure

Comment 4.1: Repetitiveness and vague claims.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback regarding repetitiveness and vague claims. In response, we have revised the Introduction section to improve clarity and conciseness. Specifically, we deleted the sentence referring to “notable investment” in family planning and women’s empowerment, as it was vague and not supported by specific evidence. Additionally, we streamlined and consolidated several overlapping statements discussing the influence of community-level empowerment on contraceptive use. These edits reduce redundancy and enhance the overall focus of the introduction by clearly articulating the study’s objective and contextual framework.

5. Literature and Framework

Comment 5.1: Literature review is descriptive, not analytical.

Response: Thank you for this insightful comment. In response, we have revised the literature review in the Introduction (lines 53–55) to adopt a more analytical tone. The revised section now critically engages with prior findings by highlighting inconsistencies—for example, how education alone may not explain contraceptive use disparities in rural or conservative contexts—and by identifying gaps that our study seeks to address. These changes provide a stronger rationale for examining both individual- and community-level empowerment and enhance the conceptual framing of our research.

Comment 5.2: Terms like “community empowerment” need clearer definitions.

Response: We now define such terms clearly in the methods section and operationalize how they were measured.

6. Statistical and Model Concerns

Comment 6.1: Justification for PCA vs other factor analysis methods missing.

Response: We appreciate this comment. We have now clarified in the manuscript (line 152-158) that Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was chosen because it is a standard method used in DHS analyses, particularly for constructing composite indices such as the wealth index. Our application of PCA to empowerment follows the same rationale and methodology.

Comment 6.2: Explanation of model assumptions and diagnostics needed.

Response: We would like to respectfully note that we have already addressed the key model diagnostics in the originally submitted manuscript. Specifically:

1. The use of intra-cluster correlation (ICC) and the justification for a multilevel logistic regression model are discussed at lines 168–169.

2. The assessment of multicollinearity using Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) is stated at line 177-178.

If the reviewer requires more detailed explanation—such as specific ICC or AIC values, or expanded discussion of additional model assumptions—we would be happy to incorporate those upon request.

7. Ethical Considerations and Data Availability

Comment 7.1: Ethics section could address informed consent, anonymization, and researcher bias.

Response: We revised the ethics section to include explicit mention of informed consent, anonymized data, and our use of publicly available secondary data, reducing risk of bias.

Response to the Editor

PLOS Formatting and Journal Requirements

Response: We confirm that no funding information is included in the manuscript, as required. In the online submission form, we want to retain the previous statement: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

In addition, we have double-checked all references for formatting consistency and citation integrity. No retracted articles were found in the reference list.

As part of this revision, we have shifted the previous reference 5 to position 3, and have added a new reference (now listed as reference 17) to appropriately cite the use of the chi-square test and multilevel logistic regression model.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0337499.s001.docx (23.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Helen Howard

19 Sep 2025

Dear Dr. Pal,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 02 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Helen Howard

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The document titled "The Role of Individual and Community Empowerment as Drivers of Contraceptive Use among Reproductive Aged Women in Bangladesh" is a comprehensive research article that examines the influence of individual and community-level empowerment on contraceptive use among women in Bangladesh. Below is a summarized review with suggestions for improvement:

Strengths of the Study:

Relevance and Importance:

The study addresses a critical issue in reproductive health and gender equality, aligning with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 3 and 5.

It highlights the interplay between individual and community empowerment, providing insights for policymakers to improve family planning outcomes.

Robust Methodology:

The use of the 2022 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS) ensures a nationally representative dataset.

The application of socio-ecological theory and multilevel logistic regression provides a strong analytical framework.

Key Findings:

Community empowerment has a stronger and more consistent effect on contraceptive use than individual empowerment.

Socio-economic factors such as education, age, residence, and employment status significantly influence contraceptive use.

Policy Implications:

The study emphasizes the need for community-based interventions to promote gender equality and improve access to family planning services.

Ethical Considerations:

The study adheres to ethical standards, with informed consent obtained from participants and approval from relevant institutional review boards.

Areas for Improvement:

Clarity and Conciseness:

The manuscript is detailed but could benefit from more concise language in sections like the introduction and discussion. For example, the introduction could summarize the background more succinctly to quickly engage the reader.

Data Presentation:

Tables 2 and 3 are informative but could be reformatted for better readability. For instance:

Combine repetitive rows in Table 2 to reduce redundancy.

Highlight key findings in bold or with annotations for quick reference.

Statistical Analysis:

While the statistical methods are robust, the presentation of results could be enhanced with more visual aids (e.g., bar charts or heatmaps) to complement the tables.

Discussion Depth:

The discussion could delve deeper into the cultural and social factors influencing the inverse relationship between wealth and contraceptive use. This unexpected finding warrants further exploration.

Limitations:

The limitations section acknowledges the cross-sectional nature of the data but could expand on how this impacts the interpretation of causality. Suggestions for addressing this in future research should be more detailed.

Future Research:

The study mentions the need for longitudinal data and qualitative studies but could specify potential research questions or methodologies to guide future work.

Language and Grammar:

Minor grammatical errors and repetitive phrases should be revised for smoother readability. For example, the phrase "community-level empowerment" is repeated frequently and could be varied.

Figures:

Figure 2 is described but not visually included in the review. Ensure that all figures are clear, labeled, and directly referenced in the text.

Conclusion:

The study is a valuable contribution to the field of reproductive health and women’s empowerment. By emphasizing the role of community-level factors, it provides actionable insights for policymakers and practitioners. With minor revisions to improve clarity, data presentation, and discussion depth, the manuscript can achieve greater impact and readability.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes: Ashek Elahi Noor

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2026 Jan 21;21(1):e0337499. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0337499.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


14 Oct 2025

Response to Reviewer Comments

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-12603R1

Title: The Role of Individual and Community Empowerment as Drivers of Contraceptive Use among Reproductive Aged Women in Bangladesh

We sincerely thank the reviewer and the editor for their valuable feedback and constructive suggestions. We have carefully revised the manuscript to address all points raised. Below is a summary of the major revisions made:

1. Clarity and Conciseness:

The manuscript was detailed, but sections such as the Introduction and Discussion have now been revised for greater clarity and brevity. We summarized background information more succinctly to engage readers quickly and improve flow. Several lines in the Introduction and Discussion were rewritten to make the text more concise and focused.

2. Data Presentation:

The reviewers suggested improving the readability of the Tables. Significant p-values are now highlighted in bold for quick reference.

3. Statistical Analysis:

While the original methods were robust, additional visualization was recommended to better communicate key findings. We have added a new heatmap figure to complement the tabular results and included corresponding text in the Results section describing and interpreting the figure.

4. Discussion Depth:

Reviewer recommended a deeper discussion on the cultural and social factors that might explain the inverse relationship between wealth and contraceptive use. We added new lines at the end of the Discussion section elaborating on the potential cultural and social influences underlying this unexpected finding.

5. Limitations and Future Research:

The reviewers noted that the Limitations section could better articulate how the cross-sectional design affects causal interpretation and provide more specific guidance for future research. We expanded the Limitations section to clarify the implications of the study’s cross-sectional nature on causal inference.

Additionally, we updated the Future Research section to include specific suggestions, such as the use of longitudinal data and mixed-method approaches, along with potential research questions to explore the empowerment–contraceptive use nexus in more depth.

6. Language and Grammar:

We have modified some typos and replaced ‘community empowerment’ by ‘collective empowerment’, in some cases, to avoid repetition.

7. Figures:

All the three figures are visually included in the manuscript, and also these are clear, labeled, and directly referenced in the text.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer .docx

pone.0337499.s002.docx (16.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Jennifer Tucker

18 Dec 2025

Dear Dr. Pal,

  • Further review of your manuscript has raised additional revision requests which need to be addressed before this manuscript can be considered for publication. Reviewer 2 recommends improving the reporting for fullness and clarity, whilst taking care not to overstate findings without supporting data. I hope that following additional revisions we may be able to consider your manuscript for publication.

plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jennifer Tucker, PhD

Staff Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: T he authors have satisfactorily addressed all major comments and concerns raised in the previous round of review. The current revision (R2) significantly improves the clarity, focus, and completeness of the manuscript.

The following specific changes are noted and commended:

Clarity and Conciseness: The improvements to the Introduction and Discussion sections successfully enhance the manuscript's flow and academic focus, making the arguments clearer.

Data Presentation: Highlighting significant p-values in bold improves the readability and immediate comprehension of the statistical tables, which was a necessary change.

Statistical Visualization: The addition of a new heatmap figure is an excellent enhancement. It effectively complements the tabular results and provides a strong visual summary of the key findings, which was previously lacking.

Discussion Depth: The expansion of the Discussion to include potential cultural and social influences on the unexpected inverse wealth-contraceptive use relationship is a thoughtful addition that strengthens the interpretation of the results.

Limitations and Future Research: The clarification on the limitations imposed by the cross-sectional design regarding causal inference, along with the specific, actionable suggestions for future research (e.g., longitudinal data, mixed-method approaches), provides a much more robust and honest assessment of the study's scope.

The authors have demonstrated a high level of diligence and responsiveness to the reviewer feedback. The manuscript, in its revised form, meets the standards for scientific rigor and clarity expected for publication in PLOS ONE.

Reviewer #2: Title, Abstract, and Framing

The title is clear but could better reflect the multilevel design, for example by explicitly mentioning “multilevel analysis” or “multilevel logistic regression using BDHS 2022”.

The abstract is generally well written but is too generic about the methods; it should explicitly mention “Mann–Whitney U test, chi-square tests, and multilevel logistic regression” and clearly state that individual empowerment was only marginally associated (p≈0.10).

The framing overemphasizes “limited access” to modern family planning without citing current BDHS figures on contraceptive prevalence and unmet need; this can mislead readers and should be supported with recent statistics or toned down.

Introduction and Conceptualization

The introduction mixes global and Bangladesh-specific issues but lacks a clear conceptual framework figure or concise paragraph specifying how individual and community empowerment are theorized to influence contraceptive use (paths, mechanisms, and expected direction).

Citations 1–6 include at least one reference (Rajan 2021) that does not match the claim about unintended pregnancies and global burden; reference–text alignment needs checking and correcting throughout.

The gap statement is present but could be sharper: explicitly distinguish how this study adds beyond existing Bangladesh work on empowerment and contraception (e.g., novelty of BDHS 2022, multilevel community empowerment index, and use of PCA-based empowerment scores).

Methods: Data, Variables, and Analysis

The data section states 20,160 households and 18,632 women but does not explain exclusion criteria (non‑married women? missing contraceptive status? age group restrictions?) or how DHS weights, strata, and primary sampling units were handled; this is critical and must be detailed.

The outcome variable is reduced to a binary contraceptive-use indicator, but the grouping of specific methods (modern vs traditional, postpartum, LARC, sterilization) is not described; justification for collapsing into “any use” is needed, or a sensitivity analysis by method type should be considered.

Empowerment Measures

The empowerment index construction is under-specified:

No information on how missing responses in the 9 indicators were handled before PCA.

No description of standardization, number of retained components, proportion of variance explained, or internal consistency metrics.

It is unclear whether the first component only was used and how scores were scaled (e.g., mean 0, SD 1).

The coding of attitudes toward wife beating uses “1 = no” and “0 = yes”, but the text is confusing (“coded as 1 (no)… 0 (yes)”) and needs clearer wording and explicit listing of all items in a table/supplement.

The community empowerment variable is the mean of individual scores per cluster; this is reasonable, but there is no justification (e.g., why mean vs median or categorization) and no description of the distribution (range, IQR, number of clusters with few women, etc.).

Control Variables and Model Specification

Some control variables are problematic or insufficiently justified:

Categorization of age (both women and husbands) into broad groups may obscure non‑linear associations; at least a rationale or alternative specification should be considered.

Wealth index categories (poor/middle/rich) are not explicitly linked to DHS quintiles (e.g., poorest+poorer vs middle vs richer+richest); this should be clarified.

The statistical analysis section lacks important multilevel-model details:

Whether a random intercept (only) model was used, and at which level.

Model-building strategy (null model, model with individual-level empowerment, model with community-level empowerment, fully adjusted model, etc.).

Measures of between-cluster variation (e.g., variance of random effect, ICC) and model fit indices.

Only VIF is mentioned for multicollinearity, but full results or at least a statement on the range of VIFs should be provided, possibly in a supplementary table.

Results: Reporting and Interpretation

Tables are concise but need improved labeling and completeness:

Table titles and footnotes should clearly describe the sample (e.g., “Currently married women aged 15–49, BDHS 2022”).

Confidence intervals for odds ratios are missing from Table 3 and should be added for all predictors to improve interpretability.

The Mann–Whitney U results report only medians and p‑values; distributions (e.g., IQRs) and effect size measures should be added to show practical significance, not only statistical significance.

The statement that “individual empowerment is positively associated” is not fully supported given p=0.10; this should be reframed as “marginal” or “not statistically significant at conventional 5% level,” and this nuance should be carried consistently from results into abstract and discussion.

Discussion, Policy Implications, and Limitations

The discussion sometimes restates results without sufficient depth on mechanisms; more explicit linking of findings to socio‑ecological theory and to Bangladeshi gender norms would strengthen interpretation.

The inverse association between wealth and contraceptive use is described but not deeply explored; this surprising finding merits more careful consideration (method mix, desired fertility, quality of services, urban–wealth interactions) and possibly additional analyses (e.g., interaction terms or stratified models).

The policy implications are plausible but very general; consider giving more specific, context‑appropriate recommendations (e.g., integrating empowerment components into community health worker programs, engaging local leaders, or media campaigns targeting social norms).

The limitations section is brief and should explicitly mention: cross-sectional design, possible residual confounding (e.g., husband’s attitudes, service quality, region), measurement limitations of empowerment (PCA-based index from limited items), and potential cluster-level unobserved factors.

Presentation, Consistency, and Referencing

There are noticeable language issues—repeated phrases, minor grammatical errors, and occasional awkward constructions—that should be corrected via thorough language editing (e.g., “Bangladesh’s” vs “Bangladesh,” “had been assessed,” “enhance gender equality, enhance communication”).

There are inconsistencies between text and ethics sections: the main text conclusion claims no ethical approval was needed due to secondary data, whereas earlier sections describe IRB approvals; this should be harmonized and aligned with PLOS ONE’s expectations for DHS-based analyses.

Reference 1 appears unrelated to unintended pregnancies, and some references are older or not directly relevant; the reference list should be checked for accuracy, updated with recent contraceptive and empowerment literature from Bangladesh and South Asia, and aligned strictly with in‑text claims.

Key Priority Improvements (for Revision)

Clarify and rigorously document the construction and validation of individual and community empowerment indices, including PCA details and distributional characteristics.

Provide a fuller, more transparent description of the sampling, inclusion criteria, use of DHS survey design elements (weights/strata/PSU), and multilevel modeling strategy, adding ICCs and 95% CIs for all odds ratios.

Reframe the role of individual empowerment given its marginal significance, deepen interpretation of the wealth effect, and strengthen the limitations and policy implications to be more specific and theory-linked.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes: Ashek Elahi Noor

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Jan 21;21(1):e0337499. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0337499.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 3


21 Dec 2025

Response to Reviewers

PONE-D-25-12603R2

The Role of Individual and Community Empowerment as Drivers of Contraceptive Use among Reproductive Aged Women in Bangladesh

We thank the editor and the reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and their constructive comments. We appreciate the detailed feedback and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below we provide a point-by-point response.

Reviewer #1

We sincerely thank Reviewer #1 for their careful reading and positive feedback on our previous revisions. We appreciate the recognition of the improvements made in clarity, data presentation, statistical visualization, discussion depth, and limitations.

Reviewer #2

We sincerely thank Reviewer #2 for the detailed and constructive feedback. All suggested revisions have been incorporated, significantly improving the manuscript’s clarity, rigor, and relevance.

1. Title, Abstract, and Framing

Comment: The title could better reflect the multilevel design; abstract should specify statistical methods and marginal association of individual empowerment; framing overemphasizes limited access to family planning.

Response: Thank you for these suggestions.

• The title has been revised to:

“The role of individual and community empowerment as drivers of contraceptive use among reproductive aged women in Bangladesh: Insights from multilevel analysis using BDHS 2022.”

• The abstract now explicitly mentions the Mann–Whitney U test, chi-square tests, and multilevel logistic regression, and notes that individual empowerment was only marginally associated (p≈0.10).

• Statements regarding limited access to contraception have been adjusted to avoid overgeneralization.

2. Introduction and Conceptualization

Comment: Conceptual framework and gap statement needed; some references misaligned.

Response: We appreciate these deep findings. In response,

• A concise paragraph has been added at the end of the Introduction to describe the conceptual framework, showing the pathways through which individual and community empowerment may influence contraceptive use.

• The gap statement has been clarified to emphasize the novelty of using BDHS 2022, multilevel community empowerment index, and PCA-based empowerment scores.

• Reference misalignments, including Reference 1, have been corrected and updated.

3. Methods – Data, Variables, and Analysis

Comment: Clarify exclusion criteria and handling of DHS weights, strata, and clusters; justify collapsing contraceptive use into a binary variable.

Response:

• Exclusion criteria are now explicitly described: non-married women, missing contraceptive status, and age restrictions were excluded. DHS weights, strata, and primary sampling units are also described.

• Contraceptive use was dichotomized as “any use” versus non-use, consistent with prior DHS studies, to ensure sufficient statistical power. A supporting reference has been added.

4. Empowerment Measures

Comment: Missing data handling, PCA details, coding of wife-beating attitudes, and justification for community empowerment construction needed.

Response:

• Women with missing responses on any of the nine individual empowerment indicators were excluded prior to PCA.

• Standard PCA procedures were followed; the first principal component was retained and standardized (mean = 0, SD = 1). PCA results are summarized in the Methods without overloading the manuscript as this is not our core analysis.

• Coding of wife-beating attitudes has been clarified and consistently described.

• Community empowerment is calculated as the mean of individual scores per cluster; justification and a reference are now provided in the manuscript.

5. Control Variables and Model Specification

Comment: Justify age and wealth categorization; provide multilevel model details and measures of between-cluster variation.

Response:

• The papers that are referenced in this manuscript used age as categorical variable.

• Wealth index categories are explicitly linked to DHS quintiles, with a supporting reference.

• The statistical analysis section now specifies the use of a random-intercept multilevel logistic regression model, describes model-building strategy (null model, individual- and community-level models, fully adjusted model), and reports ICC, variance of random effects, MOR, and PCV.

6. Results – Reporting and Interpretation

Comment: Improve table titles/footnotes; include distributions (IQRs) and effect sizes for Mann–Whitney U test. Confidence intervals for odds ratios are missing from Table 3, and range of VIFs should be provided.

Response:

• Table titles now clearly describe the sample (currently married women aged 15–49, BDHS 2022).

• Mann–Whitney U test results include medians, IQRs, and effect sizes to reflect practical significance.

• VIF values ranged between 1.1 and 4.5, indicating no multicollinearity concerns; therefore, we did not report them in detail. Additionally, we opted not to include confidence intervals for odds ratios to avoid redundancy, as p-values are already provided. However, if the reviewer deems it necessary, we are happy to include these in a revised version.

7. Discussion, Policy Implications, and Limitations

Comment: Strengthen linking of findings to socio-ecological theory and Bangladeshi norms; discuss inverse wealth–contraceptive association; provide more specific policy recommendations; expand limitations.

Response:

• The inverse association between wealth and contraceptive use is now interpreted considering method mix, fertility preferences, cultural norms, and male decision-making.

• Policy implications have been revised with specific, context-relevant recommendations, including integrating empowerment into community health worker programs, engaging local leaders, and media campaigns targeting social norms.

• Limitations explicitly cover cross-sectional design, residual confounding, measurement limitations of PCA-based empowerment, and potential cluster-level unobserved factors.

8. Presentation, Consistency, and Referencing

Comment: Correct language issues, harmonize ethics statements, ensure reference accuracy.

Response:

• Language editing was performed to remove repeated phrases, correct minor grammatical errors, and improve clarity.

• Ethical statements were harmonized: the study used publicly available, de-identified secondary data; original DHS protocols had IRB approval.

• References have been checked, updated with recent literature from Bangladesh and South Asia, and aligned with in-text claims.

We sincerely thank the reviewers and the editor again for their thoughtful comments and guidance. We are open to adding further clarifications if the reviewers deem necessary.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_3.docx

pone.0337499.s003.docx (19KB, docx)

Decision Letter 3

Patrick Goymer

6 Jan 2026

The role of individual and community empowerment as drivers of contraceptive use among reproductive aged women in Bangladesh: Insights from multilevel analysis using BDHS 2022

PONE-D-25-12603R3

Dear Dr. Pal,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Patrick Goymer

Staff Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This manuscript presents a well-structured and methodologically rigorous analysis of the relationship between women’s empowerment and contraceptive use in Bangladesh using BDHS 2022 data. The use of a socio-ecological framework and multilevel modeling is appropriate and strengthens the study’s contribution by clearly distinguishing individual- and community-level effects. The construction of empowerment indices using PCA and the careful handling of clustering enhance analytical credibility. Findings are clearly presented and consistently interpreted, with strong policy relevance emphasizing community-level empowerment strategies. While the cross-sectional design limits causal inference and empowerment measures are constrained by available DHS indicators, these limitations are appropriately acknowledged. Overall, the manuscript makes a solid empirical and policy-relevant contribution to the literature on women’s empowerment and reproductive health and is suitable for publication with only minor refinements.

Reviewer #2: I think the manuscript can proceed further but I would advise the authors to include the 95% confidence intervals if possible before publication.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes: Ashek Elahi Noor

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Patrick Goymer

PONE-D-25-12603R3

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Pal,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr Patrick Goymer

Staff Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0337499.s001.docx (23.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer .docx

    pone.0337499.s002.docx (16.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_3.docx

    pone.0337499.s003.docx (19KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The original dataset used in this study is publicly available from the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program repository at: https://dhsprogram.com/data/available-datasets.cfm. The specific dataset extracted and used for this analysis can be accessed through the following link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YJW0yocVjU_gBZKhezU5RUOwSonZ_qKM/view?usp=sharing.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES