ArticleContraception: X2020
Validation of the Interpersonal Quality of Family Planning Scale in a rural Indian setting.
Article in Contraception: X, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03514914 (Enhancing Male Participation in Interventions to Prevent Unintended Pregnancy), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Enhancing Male Participation in Interventions to Prevent Unintended Pregnancy
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Trial
- Assessing the Generalizability of Client Experience Measurement Tools in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Narrative Review.Global health, science and practice · 2025Review
- Validation and Predictive Utility of a Person-Centered Quality of Contraceptive Counseling (QCC-10) Scale in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Multicountry Study of Family Planning Clients and a New Indicator for Measuring High-Quality, Rights-Based Care.Studies in family planning · 2023Article
- Article
- Contraception for married adolescents (15-19 years) in India: insights from the National Family Health Survey-4 (NFHS-4).Reproductive health · 2021Article
- Impact of contraceptive counseling on Texans who can and cannot receive no-cost post-abortion contraception.Contraception · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe provision of high-quality family planning (FP) counseling can both enhance clients' experience of care and improve their ability to make and act on their contraceptive decisions. The Interpersonal Quality of Family Planning (IQFP) scale measures FP counseling quality and has been validated in the United States. We aimed to explore whether it remains appropriate for use in a low-/middle-income country (LMIC). STUDY
designWe surveyed 1201 nonsterilized married women ages 18-29 in Maharashtra, India, between September 2018 and June 2019. Respondents rated their FP provider from "poor" (1) to "excellent" (5) across 11 IQFP items. We assessed scale reliability via Cronbach's
resultsFive hundred four women (42%) had seen an FP provider within the past year, 491 (97%) of whom answered all items. Mean IQFP score was 2.62 out of 5 (SD 0.94, range 1-5). Scale reliability was high (
conclusionsThe IQFP scale shows good reliability and construct validity in this context, and its use in LMIC settings should be broadly considered. A higher IQFP score was associated with greater odds of contraceptive use. The reported FP counseling quality was low, so future public health efforts should aim to increase counseling quality to better meet the needs of women in low-resource settings like rural India. Measurement tools like IQFP can support success evaluation of the quality of care provided by family planning programs. IMPLICATIONS: The Interpersonal Quality of Family Planning scale is a useful tool in rural India, a different context than the one in which it was developed. Use of the IQFP scale should be considered in other low-/middle-income countries to better measure the quality of family planning care provided.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.