Claim: Women with disabilities in Malawi have the same access to contraceptives as women without disabilities, according to the source archived here.

Verdict: False

Methodology

This fact-check was conducted by analysing Malawian national policies on disability and health, reviewing peer-reviewed academic studies on contraceptive use in sub-Saharan Africa with a focus on Malawi, and examining reports from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and other non-governmental organizations working on reproductive health and disability rights in the region.

The analysis focused on comparing contraceptive access and prevalence between women with and without disabilities and identifying the systemic barriers that cause the observed disparities.

Evidence and Analysis

The claim that women with disabilities have equal access to contraceptives is contradicted by evidence pointing to lower utilisation rates and a multitude of unique barriers.

Malawi has official policies, such as the National Policy on Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, which state that the government must provide “the same range, quality and standard of free or affordable health care services as provided to other persons, including sexual and reproductive health services.”

However, reports indicate a failure to implement these policies effectively. A 2018-2023 National Disability Mainstreaming Strategy failed to achieve its goal of ensuring persons with disabilities attain the highest standard of health.

The government’s core sexual and reproductive health policy has been criticised for not being inclusive of women with disabilities and for lacking specific measures to ensure their access.

Women with disabilities in Malawi face a range of interconnected obstacles:

  • Many health facilities are physically inaccessible.This includes long and difficult journeys to clinics, poor road conditions, and a lack of ramps or accessible examination rooms and beds. Ambulances are also often inaccessible.
  • A pervasive and incorrect assumption that women with disabilities are not sexually active leads to them being overlooked by healthcare providers and family members. This results in information being withheld and their reproductive health needs being ignored.
  • Health information, including on family planning, is rarely available in accessible formats like Braille or with sign language interpretation. This lack of communication can lead to devastating outcomes, as seen in reports of deaf women being misunderstood or mistreated by health workers during reproductive health visits.
  • Persons with disabilities are more likely to experience poverty, making the costs associated with transportation to clinics a significant barrier to accessing services, even if the contraceptives themselves are free.

A meta-analysis covering sub-Saharan Africa found the pooled prevalence of contraceptive use among women with disabilities was only 25.61%, a figure significantly lower than for general populations.

A scoping review by Obasanjo Bolarinwa and colleagues confirms that the use of modern contraceptives among women with disabilities in Africa remains “noticeably low” due to the barriers mentioned above.

Global reports from UNFPA corroborate these findings, stating that efforts to control fertility and restrict bodily autonomy disproportionately affect people with disabilities.

Conclusion: The claim is unequivocally FALSE. Despite national policies that mandate equality, women with disabilities in Malawi do not have the same access to contraceptives as non-disabled women. The implementation of these policies is critically flawed, leaving in place significant physical, attitudinal, and informational barriers.

The evidence clearly shows that women with disabilities are systematically marginalised within the healthcare system, particularly concerning their sexual and reproductive health rights. This leads to lower contraceptive use, a higher unmet need for family planning, and a greater risk of negative health outcomes.

This fact-check was produced by Collins Mtika of the Centre for Investigative Journalism Malawi (CIJM) as part of the African Fact-Checking Alliance’s (AFCA) incubation programme. It was produced with peer-mentorship from Code for Africa’s fact-checking initiative, PesaCheck, with financial support from Norway.

AFCA mentorship respects the journalistic independence of the researchers, offering access to advanced techniques and tools. Editorial decision-making remains with the Centre for Investigative Journalism Malawi. Want to learn more? Visit: https://factcheck.africa/