Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28115004›Full record

ReviewReproductive health2017

Are men well served by family planning programs?

Karen Hardee, Melanie Croce-Galis, Jill Gay

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Reproductive health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

69 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Are men clients, catalysts or controllers of family planning?Frontiers in global women's health · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Karen HardeePopulation Council, 4301 Connecticut Ave NW, Ste. 280, Washington, DC, 20008, USA. KHardee@popcouncil.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2545-6269
Melanie Croce-GalisWhat Works Association, 54 Mills St, Morristown, New Jersey, 07960, USA.
Jill GayWhat Works Association, 54 Mills St, Morristown, New Jersey, 07960, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the range of contraceptives includes methods for men, namely condoms, vasectomy and withdrawal that men use directly, and the Standard Days Method (SDM) that requires their participation, family planning programming has primarily focused on women. What is known about reaching men as contraceptive users? This paper draws from a review of 47 interventions that reached men and proposes 10 key considerations for strengthening programming for men as contraceptive users. A review of programming shows that men and boys are not particularly well served by programs. Most programs operate from the perspective that women are contraceptive users and that men should support their partners, with insufficient attention to reaching men as contraceptive users in their own right. The notion that family planning is women's business only is outdated. There is sufficient evidence demonstrating men's desire for information and services, as well as men's positive response to existing programming to warrant further programming for men as FP users. The key considerations focus on getting information and services where men and boys need it; addressing gender norms that affect men's attitudes and use while respecting women's autonomy; reaching adolescent boys; including men as users in policies and guidelines; scaling up successful programming; filling gaps with implementation research and monitoring & evaluation; and creating more contraceptive options for men.

Indexed as

AdolescentContraception BehaviorFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHumansMaleContraceptive useFamily planningMale contraceptive usersMale engagementMen

Identifiers

PMID28115004
PMCPMC5260026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.