Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28183308›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2017

Reasons for unmet need for family planning, with attention to the measurement of fertility preferences: protocol for a multi-site cohort study.

Kazuyo Machiyama, John B Casterline, Joyce N Mumah, Fauzia Akhter Huda, Francis Obare, George Odwe, Caroline W Kabiru, Sharifa Yeasmin, John Cleland

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed
–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

57 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Contraceptive use among women who desire no more children in Indonesia: a cross-sectional study of a national survey.Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2024
    Article
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

9 authors.

Kazuyo MachiyamaFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. Kazuyo.Machiyama@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4369-3954
John B CasterlineInstitute for Population Research, Ohio State University, Columbus, USA.
Joyce N MumahAfrican Population and Health Research Center, Nairobi, Kenya.
Fauzia Akhter Hudaicddr,b, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Francis ObarePopulation Council, Nairobi, Kenya.
George OdwePopulation Council, Nairobi, Kenya.
Caroline W KabiruAfrican Population and Health Research Center, Nairobi, Kenya.
Sharifa Yeasminicddr,b, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
John ClelandFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnmet need for family planning points to the gap between women's reproductive desire to avoid pregnancy and contraceptive behaviour. An estimated 222 million women in low- and middle-income countries have unmet need for modern contraception. Despite its prevalence, there has been little rigorous research during the past fifteen years on reasons for this widespread failure to implement childbearing desires in contraceptive practice. There is demographic survey data on women's self-reported reasons for non-use, but these data provide limited insight on the full set of possible obstacles to use, and one may doubt the meaningfulness of explanations provided by non-users alone. To rectify this evidence gap, this study will gather extensive information on women's perceptions of contraception (generic and method-specific) and their past contraceptive experience, and it will allow for more complexity in fertility preferences than is standard in demographic surveys.

methodsA multi-site cohort study will be conducted in urban Kenya, rural Kenya, and rural Bangladesh. In each setting trained fieldworkers will recruit and interview 2600 women, with participants re-interviewed at 12 and 18 months. Data will be collected using a questionnaire whose development was informed by a review of existing literature and instruments from past studies in both developed and developing countries. Dozens of experts in the field were consulted as the instrument was developed. The questionnaire has three main components: a sub-set of Demographic and Health Survey items measuring socio-demographic characteristics, reproductive history, and sexual activity; additional questions on prospective and retrospective fertility preferences designed to capture ambivalence and uncertainty; and two large blocks of items on (i) generic concerns about contraception and (ii) method-specific attributes. The method-specific items encompass eight modern and traditional methods. DISCUSSION: Policy and programmes intended to reduce unmet need for contraception in developing countries should be informed by clear understanding of the causes of this phenomenon to better reflect the population needs and to more effectively target planning and investments. To this end, this study will field an innovative instrument in Kenya and Bangladesh. The information to be collected will support a rigorous assessment of reasons for unmet need for family planning.

Indexed as

Family CharacteristicsFertilityNeeds AssessmentAdolescentAdultBangladeshContraception BehaviorFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHumansKenyaPopulation DynamicsPregnancyProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesYoung AdultBangladeshFamily planningFertilityFertility preferencesKenyaMeasurementStudy protocolUnmet need for family planning

Identifiers

PMID28183308
PMCPMC5299702

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.